Miller Brands Ukraine, a large domestic beer producer and subsidiary of international brewing giant SABMiller, sharply cut its losses in Ukraine last year while boosting output by 51.4 percent to 16.4 million deciliters of beer.
Citing figures provided by the National Securities and Stock Market Commission, Interfax-Ukraine reported that the Donetsk-based brewer’s net loss fell by 35.7 percent in 2011 to Hr 120.9 million ($15 million).
The news comes ahead of a planned transfer of SABMiller's Ukrainian and Russian assets to Turkish beer maker Anadolu Efes in exchange for a 24 percent stake in the latter.
The strategic alliance, to be completed in the near future, will focus on synergies in the East European, Turkish, and Central Asian markets.
SABMiller jumped into Ukraine’s highly competitive beer market a few years ago, following in the footsteps of other multinational beer groups who had invested into the nation’s top Soviet-built breweries.
In 2008, it acquired a nearly 100 percent stake in the Donetsk-based brewing business, earlier known as Sarmat and owned by Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov.
The company sells beer under the Sarmat, Zhygulivske, Zolotaya Bochka, Velkopopovicky Kozel and Amsterdam Mariner brands.
SABMiller accounts for less than 5 percent of Ukraine's $4 billion beer market, which is dominated by multinational brewing companies, such as Carlsberg and SUNInBev.
Saturday 25 February 2012
Gazprom wants to end gas transit via Ukraine
Russian gas giant Gazprom said on Feb. 22 it would aim to completely stop gas transit via Ukraine when it builds new pipelines later this decade as tensions between the two countries over gas prices and transit escalated.
Gazprom blamed Ukraine for shortages reported by its customers in Europe at the peak of a cold spell this month.
“Significant volumes of gas transhipped through Ukraine failed to reach Europe,” Gazprom Chief Executive Alexei Miller said at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, according to Medvedev’s office.
“On certain days, up to 40 million cubic meters of gas was kept in Ukraine and this, without doubt, incurred both financial and reputational losses on Gazprom.”
Ukrainian state energy company Naftogaz denied that. “Since the beginning of 2012, Naftogaz has not taken a single cubic metre of gas from the volumes that were shipped by Gazprom to Europe,” it said in a statement.
But citing worries over the security of transit, Medvedev ordered Gazprom to maximise the capacity of the planned South Stream pipeline across the Black Sea which will bypass Ukraine.
Gazprom plans to launch South Stream in 2015 with a capacity of 63 billion cubic metres (bcm) a year.
Coupled with Nord Stream, a pipeline through the Baltic Sea that Gazprom launched last year with plans to eventually double its capacity to 55 bcm a year, South Stream could allow Gazprom to drop Ukraine as a transit nation.
Russia shipped 104 bcm of gas through Ukrainian pipelines last year.
Moscow has accused Kyiv of siphoning gas bound for Europe in the past, most recently in early 2009, when the two ex-Soviet nations were locked in a bitter dispute over supply prices which briefly disrupted supplies to Europe.
Ukraine is also unhappy with the price of Russian gas it imports and has sought to renegotiate the price for over a year but the talks appear to have stalled.
This month, Russia said it had offered Ukraine a new gas deal, which according to media reports provides for a 10-percent price discount.
But Kyiv, which sees a fair price at $250 per thousand cubic meters, down from $416 it currently pays, has not commented on the offer.
Gazprom blamed Ukraine for shortages reported by its customers in Europe at the peak of a cold spell this month.
“Significant volumes of gas transhipped through Ukraine failed to reach Europe,” Gazprom Chief Executive Alexei Miller said at a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, according to Medvedev’s office.
“On certain days, up to 40 million cubic meters of gas was kept in Ukraine and this, without doubt, incurred both financial and reputational losses on Gazprom.”
Ukrainian state energy company Naftogaz denied that. “Since the beginning of 2012, Naftogaz has not taken a single cubic metre of gas from the volumes that were shipped by Gazprom to Europe,” it said in a statement.
But citing worries over the security of transit, Medvedev ordered Gazprom to maximise the capacity of the planned South Stream pipeline across the Black Sea which will bypass Ukraine.
Gazprom plans to launch South Stream in 2015 with a capacity of 63 billion cubic metres (bcm) a year.
Coupled with Nord Stream, a pipeline through the Baltic Sea that Gazprom launched last year with plans to eventually double its capacity to 55 bcm a year, South Stream could allow Gazprom to drop Ukraine as a transit nation.
Russia shipped 104 bcm of gas through Ukrainian pipelines last year.
Moscow has accused Kyiv of siphoning gas bound for Europe in the past, most recently in early 2009, when the two ex-Soviet nations were locked in a bitter dispute over supply prices which briefly disrupted supplies to Europe.
Ukraine is also unhappy with the price of Russian gas it imports and has sought to renegotiate the price for over a year but the talks appear to have stalled.
This month, Russia said it had offered Ukraine a new gas deal, which according to media reports provides for a 10-percent price discount.
But Kyiv, which sees a fair price at $250 per thousand cubic meters, down from $416 it currently pays, has not commented on the offer.
Kyiv authorities remove 98 illegal kiosks and permanent constructions
Kyivblahoustriy municipal enterprise since the beginning of 2012 has pulled down over 60 illegally constructed kiosks in Kyiv, the press service of Kyiv City State Administration reported on Monday.
On Feb. 14, 2012, the commission of Kyiv City State Administration took the decision to pull down 98 kiosks and temporary constructions in Kyiv.
According to a press service, new proposals from Kyiv citizens to remove illegally constructed kiosks located on the edge of Kyiv ahead of the Euro 2012 football event and also near metro and public transport stations were considered by the commission responsible for placing of temporary constructions headed by first Deputy Head of Kyiv City State Administration Oleksandr Mazurchak on Feb. 20.
The administration noted that according to a decision of Kyiv Council of Jan. 26, 2012, the ban on setting up kiosks in particular concerns facilities located at a distance of less than 20 meters from the entrance or exit of metro and public transport stations.
Moreover according to the document, the installation of kiosks is banned within in a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the Olympiysky National Sports Complex and in areas near trade centers for which the centers have obtained planning permission.
On Feb. 14, 2012, the commission of Kyiv City State Administration took the decision to pull down 98 kiosks and temporary constructions in Kyiv.
According to a press service, new proposals from Kyiv citizens to remove illegally constructed kiosks located on the edge of Kyiv ahead of the Euro 2012 football event and also near metro and public transport stations were considered by the commission responsible for placing of temporary constructions headed by first Deputy Head of Kyiv City State Administration Oleksandr Mazurchak on Feb. 20.
The administration noted that according to a decision of Kyiv Council of Jan. 26, 2012, the ban on setting up kiosks in particular concerns facilities located at a distance of less than 20 meters from the entrance or exit of metro and public transport stations.
Moreover according to the document, the installation of kiosks is banned within in a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the Olympiysky National Sports Complex and in areas near trade centers for which the centers have obtained planning permission.
Popov: Reconstruction of Andriyivsky Descent to be completed by May
Head of Kyiv City State Administration Oleksandr Popov has said he is confident that the reconstruction of Andriyivsky Descent in Kyiv will be completed by the end of May 2012.
"We will complete its [Andriyivsky Descent's] reconstruction by the City Day, by the end of May," he told reporters on Wednesday after attending an open lesson dedicated to Euro 2012 at School No.16 in the Obolon district in Kyiv.
Popov said that Kyiv would receive certain funds by the end of February 2012, including from the state budget, which will help speed up the funding of this project.
He said that the recent bad weather in Ukraine had prevented the necessary reconstruction work from being done.
"We will complete its [Andriyivsky Descent's] reconstruction by the City Day, by the end of May," he told reporters on Wednesday after attending an open lesson dedicated to Euro 2012 at School No.16 in the Obolon district in Kyiv.
Popov said that Kyiv would receive certain funds by the end of February 2012, including from the state budget, which will help speed up the funding of this project.
He said that the recent bad weather in Ukraine had prevented the necessary reconstruction work from being done.
Condoms with Yanukovych’s image appear in Kyiv
On Feb. 24, police arrested activists who were handing out condoms with the image of a man who resembeled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Condoms with a picture similar to Yanukovych labeled “This UKRAyinsky Pres,” a slogan with a veiled reference to Yanukovych’s two prison terms, were handed out by a group of activists in Independence Square in Kyiv.
According to the Committee of the Orange Revolution Participants (KUPR), the event didn’t last long. As soon as the condoms were passed out for free, they were confiscated by the police and the activists were arrested.
“People who just tried to pick up the empty box from asphalt were also arrested," blogger Olena Bilozerska said, reporting on the event at the Independence Square.
According to the KUPR press service, one of the activists was detained in the "McDonald's" by four men in civilian clothes, who showed identification of the police criminal unit, and seized the box with 250 packs of condoms.
Serhiy Melnychenko, one of the detainees, says that there are no grounds for detention, because the packaging of condoms states that all characters depicted on it are fictional and bear no resemblance to real people.
According to the activists, 1,000 condoms have been manufactured.
Condoms with a picture similar to Yanukovych labeled “This UKRAyinsky Pres,” a slogan with a veiled reference to Yanukovych’s two prison terms, were handed out by a group of activists in Independence Square in Kyiv.
According to the Committee of the Orange Revolution Participants (KUPR), the event didn’t last long. As soon as the condoms were passed out for free, they were confiscated by the police and the activists were arrested.
“People who just tried to pick up the empty box from asphalt were also arrested," blogger Olena Bilozerska said, reporting on the event at the Independence Square.
According to the KUPR press service, one of the activists was detained in the "McDonald's" by four men in civilian clothes, who showed identification of the police criminal unit, and seized the box with 250 packs of condoms.
Serhiy Melnychenko, one of the detainees, says that there are no grounds for detention, because the packaging of condoms states that all characters depicted on it are fictional and bear no resemblance to real people.
According to the activists, 1,000 condoms have been manufactured.
Lutsenko verdict expected on Feb. 27
Former top cop Yuriy Lutsenko faces more than four years in prison on abuse of office and corruption charges.
Kyiv’s Pechersk District Court is scheduled on Feb. 27 to announce its verdict in the case of Yuriy Lutsenko, an Orange Revolution leader who became the nation’s top cop but now faces more than four years in prison.
The nation’s interior minister in 2005-2006 and again from 2007-2010, Lutsenko has been held in a pre-trial detention jail for 14 months. He is held on corruption charges that have been criticized as part of President Viktor Yanukovych’s campaign of political persecution against allies of imprisoned rival ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Lutsenko denies the charges that he exceeded his official authority in leading the nation's more than 300,000 police officers.
Judge Serhiy Vovk’s verdict on the Lutsenko case will be closely watched as yet another sign of whether Ukraine is slipping further into authoritarianism after halting democratic progress.
The prosecutions of Lutsenko and other opposition politicians, including Tymoshenko, who was sentenced on Oct. 11 to seven years in prison, have been widely criticized as show trials.
The European Union warns that politically motivated prosecutions threaten relations.
Yanukovych claims Ukraine’s law enforcement and courts are independent of him and describes the investigations as a genuine attempt to combat corruption. But not many people are buying the explanation. The nation’s history is one of political control over the nation’s judicial system, from judges to prosecutors and police.
Prosecutors say Lutsenko abused his powers by illegally extending police surveillance of the one-time driver of former Security Service of Ukraine chief Volodymyr Satsyuk.
Satsyuk was one of the people with whom ex-President Viktor Yushchenko dined in September 2004 just before falling ill with an almost fatal dioxin poisoning. Yushchenko believes the poisoning took place then.
But Lutsenko’s lawyer claims that prosecutors produced no evidence of wrongdoing or witnesses who supported claims that extending the surveillance was illegal.
Prosecutors also accuse Lutsenko of abusing his authority by spending some $37,500 in state budget money to celebrate Police Day in 2008 and 2009. Lutsenko’s lawyers claim there was no loss to the state because the funds largely went to state-owned concert hall Palats Ukraina.
According to a third charge, Lutsenko exceeded authority by arranging for the allocation of a one-room apartment for his driver, Leonid Prystupliuk, and illegally promoting the driver to qualify him for a larger pension. Lutsenko’s lawyers claim that only one out of dozens of witnesses upheld this claim.
Mykhaylo Klyuyev, a former deputy interior minister, said that Lutsenko gave him documents that increased the driver’s record of civilian work experience. But when Lutsenko showed evidence that Klyuyev was on a trip abroad that day, the witness struggled to explain the contradiction.
Prosecutors have asked the court to sentence Lutsenko to four and a half years in prison and to confiscate his property. They also want Lutsenko to be fined $36,000 and deprived from holding public office for three years.
Kyiv’s Pechersk District Court is scheduled on Feb. 27 to announce its verdict in the case of Yuriy Lutsenko, an Orange Revolution leader who became the nation’s top cop but now faces more than four years in prison.
The nation’s interior minister in 2005-2006 and again from 2007-2010, Lutsenko has been held in a pre-trial detention jail for 14 months. He is held on corruption charges that have been criticized as part of President Viktor Yanukovych’s campaign of political persecution against allies of imprisoned rival ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Lutsenko denies the charges that he exceeded his official authority in leading the nation's more than 300,000 police officers.
Judge Serhiy Vovk’s verdict on the Lutsenko case will be closely watched as yet another sign of whether Ukraine is slipping further into authoritarianism after halting democratic progress.
The prosecutions of Lutsenko and other opposition politicians, including Tymoshenko, who was sentenced on Oct. 11 to seven years in prison, have been widely criticized as show trials.
The European Union warns that politically motivated prosecutions threaten relations.
Yanukovych claims Ukraine’s law enforcement and courts are independent of him and describes the investigations as a genuine attempt to combat corruption. But not many people are buying the explanation. The nation’s history is one of political control over the nation’s judicial system, from judges to prosecutors and police.
Prosecutors say Lutsenko abused his powers by illegally extending police surveillance of the one-time driver of former Security Service of Ukraine chief Volodymyr Satsyuk.
Satsyuk was one of the people with whom ex-President Viktor Yushchenko dined in September 2004 just before falling ill with an almost fatal dioxin poisoning. Yushchenko believes the poisoning took place then.
But Lutsenko’s lawyer claims that prosecutors produced no evidence of wrongdoing or witnesses who supported claims that extending the surveillance was illegal.
Prosecutors also accuse Lutsenko of abusing his authority by spending some $37,500 in state budget money to celebrate Police Day in 2008 and 2009. Lutsenko’s lawyers claim there was no loss to the state because the funds largely went to state-owned concert hall Palats Ukraina.
According to a third charge, Lutsenko exceeded authority by arranging for the allocation of a one-room apartment for his driver, Leonid Prystupliuk, and illegally promoting the driver to qualify him for a larger pension. Lutsenko’s lawyers claim that only one out of dozens of witnesses upheld this claim.
Mykhaylo Klyuyev, a former deputy interior minister, said that Lutsenko gave him documents that increased the driver’s record of civilian work experience. But when Lutsenko showed evidence that Klyuyev was on a trip abroad that day, the witness struggled to explain the contradiction.
Prosecutors have asked the court to sentence Lutsenko to four and a half years in prison and to confiscate his property. They also want Lutsenko to be fined $36,000 and deprived from holding public office for three years.
Yanukovych expects meeting with Russian leaders on gas issue in March
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych believes that he will meet with Russian leadership in March to discuss the natural gas supply.
"The negotiations are ahead. They will not be easy, they will be difficult. I am sure that we will meet in March. We will meet after the Russian elections, it's no good delaying it any longer," the head of state said in an interview with three Ukrainian TV channels on Friday evening.
He recalled that during his recent visit to Ukraine, State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin confirmed Russian government's willingness to meet with Ukrainian counterparts to address many important issues
"The negotiations are ahead. They will not be easy, they will be difficult. I am sure that we will meet in March. We will meet after the Russian elections, it's no good delaying it any longer," the head of state said in an interview with three Ukrainian TV channels on Friday evening.
He recalled that during his recent visit to Ukraine, State Duma Speaker Sergei Naryshkin confirmed Russian government's willingness to meet with Ukrainian counterparts to address many important issues
Saturday 18 February 2012
Moscow ranks 37th best student city – study
Quacquarelli Symonds has released its annual QS Best Student Cities in the World rankings. The study has two requirements for city’s to be included in the rankings, a minimum population of 250,000 and at least two ranked institutions. Five categories were used to rate the cities: university rankings, student mix, quality of living, employer activity and affordability. According to the ranking, Moscow came in at 37th place one step behind Amsterdam but ahead one place of Brussels. Paris took first place.
Audit Chamber head says Putin’s proposed privatization fee is doable
The head of the Audit Chamber, Sergei Stepashin, says he knows how to calculate what the so-called oligarchs still owe the state after the controversial and murky privatization of the 1990s.
Last week at a meeting with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin called the privatizations’ results “unfair.”
“Of course, this page must be turned. We must end this period, there are different options being offered, of course, we must discuss it with experts. But it must be done in such a way that society will accept the closing of this problem from the 1990s, of the, let’s just say it, unfair privatization,”
Putin proposed a one-off payment to compensate for their dubious gains, in a proposal that resembled Britain’s 1997 Windfall Tax.
“It must be either a one-time fee, or something else. We must think about it together. I think in the first place, society in general and entrepreneurs are interested in this.”
Stepashin said in an interview said today that while difficult, it would not be impossible to determine who owes what.
“In principle, one can calculate the difference in the price of those assets – from what they were purchased in the ’90s and what they were actually worth. But I must warn you, to do it will be difficult. If there is a need, we can solve the issue through legal procedures, bring in independent financial supervisors, including the Audit Chamber.”
“I recall that in 2003, the Audit Chamber finished its study of Russia’s privatizations in the 1990s,” Stepashin said. “Analyzing the results of the privatizations, we openly and honestly said that it ‘was conducted the worst possible way out of all European countries.’ This I quote verbatim from a member of the expert group, which worked together with the Audit Chamber, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an American professor. He is impartial, he grew up in a market economy. In not one country in the world, including Eastern European countries – Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, I am already not taking into account China, Vietnam -- was this kind of privatization carried out.”
Last week at a meeting with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin called the privatizations’ results “unfair.”
“Of course, this page must be turned. We must end this period, there are different options being offered, of course, we must discuss it with experts. But it must be done in such a way that society will accept the closing of this problem from the 1990s, of the, let’s just say it, unfair privatization,”
Putin proposed a one-off payment to compensate for their dubious gains, in a proposal that resembled Britain’s 1997 Windfall Tax.
“It must be either a one-time fee, or something else. We must think about it together. I think in the first place, society in general and entrepreneurs are interested in this.”
Stepashin said in an interview said today that while difficult, it would not be impossible to determine who owes what.
“In principle, one can calculate the difference in the price of those assets – from what they were purchased in the ’90s and what they were actually worth. But I must warn you, to do it will be difficult. If there is a need, we can solve the issue through legal procedures, bring in independent financial supervisors, including the Audit Chamber.”
“I recall that in 2003, the Audit Chamber finished its study of Russia’s privatizations in the 1990s,” Stepashin said. “Analyzing the results of the privatizations, we openly and honestly said that it ‘was conducted the worst possible way out of all European countries.’ This I quote verbatim from a member of the expert group, which worked together with the Audit Chamber, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an American professor. He is impartial, he grew up in a market economy. In not one country in the world, including Eastern European countries – Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, I am already not taking into account China, Vietnam -- was this kind of privatization carried out.”
Putin’s social projects to cost $170 billion - research
A range of social spending pledges outlined by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in a newspaper article earlier this week could cost the Russian budget 5.1 trillion rubles ($170 billion) over the next six years, the Sberbank Center of Macroeconomic Research has found.
The research note published this week analyses the cost to the government of projects to increase public sector pay, raise social benefit payments and reduce the cost of housing.
All were policies laid out in an election campaign article by Putin, the leading presidential candidate, in an article published in Kommsomolskay Pravda Monday.
The research found that spending on the specific pledges in Monday’s article would constitute an annual average of 0.84 percent of GDP annually. The figure could be higher if added to other social spending projects proposed by the government.
The Sberbank figure also does not include some of the vaguer policies pitched by Putin in the article that were too difficult to quantify in financial terms, such as those to bridge social divides and lowering alcohol consumption.
“Unfortunately, a lack of detailed statistical data and detail in the measures outlined in the article, doesn’t allow us to accurately calculate the volume of spending required for their realization,” the report said.
The most expensive pledge, the research center found, was a promise to raise the pay of doctors, school teachers and university lecturers, which will cost 3.5 trillion rubles ($117 billion) over six years.
In his article, Putin put the price tag on the pay increases at around $30 billion, or 1.5 percent of GDP.
Many economists and political analysts described Putin’s article as populist and questioned how realistic the proposals were in the current economic uncertainty.
“There is a lot of discussion now about how to balance the budget given all these obligations,” Citibank strategist Andrei Kuznetsov told The Moscow News. “Now the government is discussing either which areas of spending to cut or which areas of taxation to increase.”
He said that increasing social taxes – currently the government’s preferred policy – would only raise a limited amount of funds because previous attempts have only led to a growth in the shadow economy.
Currently the government is also discussing cuts to military and defense spending, a policy popular with former Russian finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, who quit the government last fall over a dispute about spending policies.
Alexei Devyatov, chief economist at the Uralsib investment bank, said that a more effective way to create funds for increased social spending would be to increase budge spending efficiency by clamping down on corruption.
“Medvedev said in late 2010 that his estimate of corruption in the state procurement system was about 1 trillion rubles [$33 billion] per year,” Devyatov told The Moscow News “It think the real figure is more than that, but even at this level, over the next five years, it would be enough to finance social spending.”
The research note published this week analyses the cost to the government of projects to increase public sector pay, raise social benefit payments and reduce the cost of housing.
All were policies laid out in an election campaign article by Putin, the leading presidential candidate, in an article published in Kommsomolskay Pravda Monday.
The research found that spending on the specific pledges in Monday’s article would constitute an annual average of 0.84 percent of GDP annually. The figure could be higher if added to other social spending projects proposed by the government.
The Sberbank figure also does not include some of the vaguer policies pitched by Putin in the article that were too difficult to quantify in financial terms, such as those to bridge social divides and lowering alcohol consumption.
“Unfortunately, a lack of detailed statistical data and detail in the measures outlined in the article, doesn’t allow us to accurately calculate the volume of spending required for their realization,” the report said.
The most expensive pledge, the research center found, was a promise to raise the pay of doctors, school teachers and university lecturers, which will cost 3.5 trillion rubles ($117 billion) over six years.
In his article, Putin put the price tag on the pay increases at around $30 billion, or 1.5 percent of GDP.
Many economists and political analysts described Putin’s article as populist and questioned how realistic the proposals were in the current economic uncertainty.
“There is a lot of discussion now about how to balance the budget given all these obligations,” Citibank strategist Andrei Kuznetsov told The Moscow News. “Now the government is discussing either which areas of spending to cut or which areas of taxation to increase.”
He said that increasing social taxes – currently the government’s preferred policy – would only raise a limited amount of funds because previous attempts have only led to a growth in the shadow economy.
Currently the government is also discussing cuts to military and defense spending, a policy popular with former Russian finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, who quit the government last fall over a dispute about spending policies.
Alexei Devyatov, chief economist at the Uralsib investment bank, said that a more effective way to create funds for increased social spending would be to increase budge spending efficiency by clamping down on corruption.
“Medvedev said in late 2010 that his estimate of corruption in the state procurement system was about 1 trillion rubles [$33 billion] per year,” Devyatov told The Moscow News “It think the real figure is more than that, but even at this level, over the next five years, it would be enough to finance social spending.”
Afghan Veterans Snub Ukraine's Yanukovich Over Payout Cuts
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian veterans of the 10-year Soviet Afghan war, angry about proposed cuts to payouts, snubbed President Viktor Yanukovich on Wednesday, turning their backs on him at a ceremony to mark the 23rd anniversary of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Veterans of the 1979-89 Soviet military campaign are furious about plans to cut pensions and subsidies as part of austerity measures aimed at reducing Ukraine's public deficit to secure further International Monetary Fund financing.
When Yanukovich arrived at a Kiev memorial site to lay a wreath to the war dead, a group of veterans, waiting in line, turned their backs to him on the parade command "About turn!".
They turned back again to face the monument after Yanukovich and members of the government had left.
"The President was the first to turn his back on us. We, in reply, turned our backsides on him," said one unnamed veteran, quoted by the New District news agency.
Ukraine's Afghan veterans are among the most active of interest groups protesting against austerity plans and proposed cuts to benefits.
Last September, scores of them clashed with police when they tried to storm the Ukrainian parliament and they have taken part in several public demonstrations since.
Veterans of the 1979-89 Soviet military campaign are furious about plans to cut pensions and subsidies as part of austerity measures aimed at reducing Ukraine's public deficit to secure further International Monetary Fund financing.
When Yanukovich arrived at a Kiev memorial site to lay a wreath to the war dead, a group of veterans, waiting in line, turned their backs to him on the parade command "About turn!".
They turned back again to face the monument after Yanukovich and members of the government had left.
"The President was the first to turn his back on us. We, in reply, turned our backsides on him," said one unnamed veteran, quoted by the New District news agency.
Ukraine's Afghan veterans are among the most active of interest groups protesting against austerity plans and proposed cuts to benefits.
Last September, scores of them clashed with police when they tried to storm the Ukrainian parliament and they have taken part in several public demonstrations since.
Ukraine: Allegations Tymoshenko Denied Prison Visits
KHARKIV, Ukraine -- The lawyer for jailed former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko claims he and Tymoshenko’s daughter, Yevgenia Tymoshenko, have again not been allowed into the prison where she is being held before the ex-premier was examined by foreign medics.
Yulia Tymoshenko was seen by German doctors from a western medical team on Wednesday.
The Interfax news agency reported that the Germans left early on Wednesday with the results of their examination in a sealed envelope, which is to remain closed until another round of medical examinations are completed by Canadian doctors with the involvement of the Prosecutor General’s office.
Tymoshenko’s daughter said: “They’re not letting me in for the second day in a row. We don’t know what is going on. We don’t understand what pressure she is under there. Yesterday we had all the prosecutor’s office and prison service representatives there."
"They put a lot of pressure on her to make her agree to the (presence of) Ukrainian doctors, which she has solid grounds to refuse. No, we don’t know either her diagnosis, or what is happening to her.”
Tymoshenko was given a seven-year sentence for financial wrongdoing whilst in office after a trial that the European Union and the United States said was politically motivated.
Yulia Tymoshenko was seen by German doctors from a western medical team on Wednesday.
The Interfax news agency reported that the Germans left early on Wednesday with the results of their examination in a sealed envelope, which is to remain closed until another round of medical examinations are completed by Canadian doctors with the involvement of the Prosecutor General’s office.
Tymoshenko’s daughter said: “They’re not letting me in for the second day in a row. We don’t know what is going on. We don’t understand what pressure she is under there. Yesterday we had all the prosecutor’s office and prison service representatives there."
"They put a lot of pressure on her to make her agree to the (presence of) Ukrainian doctors, which she has solid grounds to refuse. No, we don’t know either her diagnosis, or what is happening to her.”
Tymoshenko was given a seven-year sentence for financial wrongdoing whilst in office after a trial that the European Union and the United States said was politically motivated.
Lawyer: Tymoshenko's Health Problems 'Serious'
KIEV, Ukraine -- A lawyer for jailed former Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko says Western doctors have concluded she has "serious" health problems.
Tymoshenko is serving a seven-year sentence on charges of abuse of office following a trial that the West has condemned as politically motivated.
She was examined by a group of Western doctors this week after complaining of severe back pain and inability to walk or stand.
Tymoshenko's lawyer Serhiy Vlasenko said Thursday that the German and Canadian doctors said she was in grave condition.
He did not provide any further details.
Government-appointed doctors have insisted her health is satisfactory.
Tymoshenko accuses President Viktor Yanukovych of putting her behind bars to get rid of his main political rival.
Tymoshenko is serving a seven-year sentence on charges of abuse of office following a trial that the West has condemned as politically motivated.
She was examined by a group of Western doctors this week after complaining of severe back pain and inability to walk or stand.
Tymoshenko's lawyer Serhiy Vlasenko said Thursday that the German and Canadian doctors said she was in grave condition.
He did not provide any further details.
Government-appointed doctors have insisted her health is satisfactory.
Tymoshenko accuses President Viktor Yanukovych of putting her behind bars to get rid of his main political rival.
Russia’s ‘Snow Revolution’ Protesters Must Avoid Ukraine’s Mistakes
MOSCOW, Russia -- Vladimir Putin’s regime is warning Russians that their budding “Snow Revolution” will be as big a mistake as Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004.
But, while the similarities between these two popular movements are palpable, their differences are essential, so comparing them might help the Russian opposition to avoid some mistakes.
Like the Snow Revolution, the Orange Revolution was a broad middle-class reaction against corruption and the absence of the rule of law.
In contrast to the Arab Spring, the Orange Revolution was entirely peaceful, as the Snow Revolution has been, and neither was triggered by economic or social crisis.
But there are also significant differences.
Ukraine has a big ethnic divide between Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers.
The Ukrainian opposition was well entrenched in the parliament and media, rendering it part of the system.
The outstanding achievement of the Orange Revolution was political and civil freedom.
But its ultimate flaw was a nearly complete political stalemate, which led to even worse corruption and authoritarianism.
Having been in Ukraine during and after the Orange Revolution, and having just spent time in Moscow, some pitfalls facing the Snow Revolution seem evident to me.
The Orange Revolution was peaceful because a sufficiently large number of people took to the streets.
The Russian opposition has already absorbed that insight, minimizing the risk of violence.
But it might have been a mistake in 2004 to occupy central Kiev and pursue persistent demonstrations that forced a quick resolution of the crisis, because it prompted a flawed compromise with the old regime.
The sudden relief caused dangerous euphoria and hubris among the Orange revolutionaries.
For this reason, the Russian opposition is probably being sensible by holding large demonstrations from time to time, showing the regime its strength but not forcing an instant solution.
Indeed, the sudden resolution of the Orange Revolution led to the adoption of a dysfunctional constitution with a confusing and unwieldy division of powers.
It looked like a trap set by the old regime’s operators.
There is no reason for anybody to repeat such a mistake.
A constitution requires serious consideration.
The old regime’s adherents can more easily trick the newcomers into dangerous compromises if the process is exceedingly fast.
The other major shortcoming was that the leader of the Orange Revolution, Viktor Yushchenko, turned out to be a feckless and irresponsible president.
Initially, he traveled the world for months to celebrate his victory, ignoring the chaos back home.
Then he began vetoing virtually all decisions by the government, causing a political stalemate, and, toward the end of his presidency, tacitly joined with the old guard (now back in power) against then-Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko – whose party, to its credit, had voted against the Constitution.
But, while Yushchenko serves as a warning to Russians not to elect an accidental president with excessive powers, an underlying cause of the Orange government’s breakdown was that most of its ministers (Yushchenko appointees) were defectors from the old regime.
Most had never opposed its corruption, and the prominent businessmen who funded the Orange Revolution expected to profit handsomely from their political investments.
As a result, there was no cleansing of the old cadres, and corruption declined only temporarily.
By contrast Georgia’s Rose Revolution of 2003 carried out a wholesale change of senior officials, bringing in young and well-educated leaders with Western educations.
Russia needs to follow the example set by Georgia – and Estonia – by promoting a new generation of young, skilled and untainted professionals.
The Orange Revolution’s greatest policy mistake was its early focus on “re-privatization” – the renationalization and resale of enterprises that had been privatized at exceedingly low prices.
The Orange government spent its first half-year discussing which enterprises should be re-privatized and how.
Meanwhile production slowed every month, as uncertainty about property rights scared businessmen.
In the end, only one big metallurgical enterprise, Krivoryzhstal, was re-privatized; by then, the Orange coalition had already fallen apart.
For Russian politicians, reprivatization is a great political temptation.
Indeed, all three opposition parties in the Duma call for far-reaching re-nationalization, though it would be politically and economically devastating.
Instead, a new democratic government could call for higher property taxation and prosecution of corrupt officials.
In comparison with Ukraine, Russia has quite decent legislation, and its economic courts enjoy some respect.
The ultimate reason to expect a more successful democratic breakthrough in Russia today than in Ukraine in 2004 is that Russia is so much richer and more developed than Ukraine, with per capita GDP (at current exchange rates) four times higher.
As modernization theorists like Seymour Martin Lipset and Samuel Huntington would have noted, Russia is simply too wealthy, well-educated and open to be so authoritarian.
According to the non-governmental organization Freedom House, only seven small oil-exporting states and Singapore are wealthier than Russia and still authoritarian.
Russia should draw four major lessons from the Orange Revolution as its own Snow Revolution proceeds.
First, the new democrats must avoid being tricked into a dysfunctional compromise with the old regime.
Second, leaders are critical to a sustainable democratic breakthrough, and this choice will be as vital as it is difficult.
Third, Russia needs a cleansing of corrupt officials, and it should draw from its wealth of young and well-trained talent.
Finally, reprivatization is a poison pill that must be avoided.
The Orange Revolution was no mistake, but a just cause is no guarantee of victory.
Russia’s Snow revolutionaries must make sure that the good fight is also a smart fight.
But, while the similarities between these two popular movements are palpable, their differences are essential, so comparing them might help the Russian opposition to avoid some mistakes.
Like the Snow Revolution, the Orange Revolution was a broad middle-class reaction against corruption and the absence of the rule of law.
In contrast to the Arab Spring, the Orange Revolution was entirely peaceful, as the Snow Revolution has been, and neither was triggered by economic or social crisis.
But there are also significant differences.
Ukraine has a big ethnic divide between Russian speakers and Ukrainian speakers.
The Ukrainian opposition was well entrenched in the parliament and media, rendering it part of the system.
The outstanding achievement of the Orange Revolution was political and civil freedom.
But its ultimate flaw was a nearly complete political stalemate, which led to even worse corruption and authoritarianism.
Having been in Ukraine during and after the Orange Revolution, and having just spent time in Moscow, some pitfalls facing the Snow Revolution seem evident to me.
The Orange Revolution was peaceful because a sufficiently large number of people took to the streets.
The Russian opposition has already absorbed that insight, minimizing the risk of violence.
But it might have been a mistake in 2004 to occupy central Kiev and pursue persistent demonstrations that forced a quick resolution of the crisis, because it prompted a flawed compromise with the old regime.
The sudden relief caused dangerous euphoria and hubris among the Orange revolutionaries.
For this reason, the Russian opposition is probably being sensible by holding large demonstrations from time to time, showing the regime its strength but not forcing an instant solution.
Indeed, the sudden resolution of the Orange Revolution led to the adoption of a dysfunctional constitution with a confusing and unwieldy division of powers.
It looked like a trap set by the old regime’s operators.
There is no reason for anybody to repeat such a mistake.
A constitution requires serious consideration.
The old regime’s adherents can more easily trick the newcomers into dangerous compromises if the process is exceedingly fast.
The other major shortcoming was that the leader of the Orange Revolution, Viktor Yushchenko, turned out to be a feckless and irresponsible president.
Initially, he traveled the world for months to celebrate his victory, ignoring the chaos back home.
Then he began vetoing virtually all decisions by the government, causing a political stalemate, and, toward the end of his presidency, tacitly joined with the old guard (now back in power) against then-Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko – whose party, to its credit, had voted against the Constitution.
But, while Yushchenko serves as a warning to Russians not to elect an accidental president with excessive powers, an underlying cause of the Orange government’s breakdown was that most of its ministers (Yushchenko appointees) were defectors from the old regime.
Most had never opposed its corruption, and the prominent businessmen who funded the Orange Revolution expected to profit handsomely from their political investments.
As a result, there was no cleansing of the old cadres, and corruption declined only temporarily.
By contrast Georgia’s Rose Revolution of 2003 carried out a wholesale change of senior officials, bringing in young and well-educated leaders with Western educations.
Russia needs to follow the example set by Georgia – and Estonia – by promoting a new generation of young, skilled and untainted professionals.
The Orange Revolution’s greatest policy mistake was its early focus on “re-privatization” – the renationalization and resale of enterprises that had been privatized at exceedingly low prices.
The Orange government spent its first half-year discussing which enterprises should be re-privatized and how.
Meanwhile production slowed every month, as uncertainty about property rights scared businessmen.
In the end, only one big metallurgical enterprise, Krivoryzhstal, was re-privatized; by then, the Orange coalition had already fallen apart.
For Russian politicians, reprivatization is a great political temptation.
Indeed, all three opposition parties in the Duma call for far-reaching re-nationalization, though it would be politically and economically devastating.
Instead, a new democratic government could call for higher property taxation and prosecution of corrupt officials.
In comparison with Ukraine, Russia has quite decent legislation, and its economic courts enjoy some respect.
The ultimate reason to expect a more successful democratic breakthrough in Russia today than in Ukraine in 2004 is that Russia is so much richer and more developed than Ukraine, with per capita GDP (at current exchange rates) four times higher.
As modernization theorists like Seymour Martin Lipset and Samuel Huntington would have noted, Russia is simply too wealthy, well-educated and open to be so authoritarian.
According to the non-governmental organization Freedom House, only seven small oil-exporting states and Singapore are wealthier than Russia and still authoritarian.
Russia should draw four major lessons from the Orange Revolution as its own Snow Revolution proceeds.
First, the new democrats must avoid being tricked into a dysfunctional compromise with the old regime.
Second, leaders are critical to a sustainable democratic breakthrough, and this choice will be as vital as it is difficult.
Third, Russia needs a cleansing of corrupt officials, and it should draw from its wealth of young and well-trained talent.
Finally, reprivatization is a poison pill that must be avoided.
The Orange Revolution was no mistake, but a just cause is no guarantee of victory.
Russia’s Snow revolutionaries must make sure that the good fight is also a smart fight.
Angola: Ukrainian Military Attaché Confident About Strengthening Ties
LUANDA, Angola -- The new Ukrainian military attaché in Angola, colonel Olesksandr V. Galyts, manifested Wednesday, in Luanda, his confidence in strengthening ties between both countries in the military domain.
Colonel Oleksandr V. Galyts manifested this fact when intervening at a ceremony which served to accredit Ukraine's military attaché in the country, presided over by the director of International Affairs of the Defence Ministry, general José Higino de Sousa "Zé Grande".
The Ukrainian military attaché said also that he hopes his mission be successful, once Angola is an important partner and very interesting for Ukraine.
In turn, gen. José de Sousa Higino "Zé Grande" said he hopes to strengthen the cooperation and establish a more effective and efficient relationship.
Colonel Oleksandr V. Galyts manifested this fact when intervening at a ceremony which served to accredit Ukraine's military attaché in the country, presided over by the director of International Affairs of the Defence Ministry, general José Higino de Sousa "Zé Grande".
The Ukrainian military attaché said also that he hopes his mission be successful, once Angola is an important partner and very interesting for Ukraine.
In turn, gen. José de Sousa Higino "Zé Grande" said he hopes to strengthen the cooperation and establish a more effective and efficient relationship.
Ukraine's Death Toll From Cold Spell Reaches 151
KIEV, Ukraine -- Health officials say 151 people have died in the Ukraine during Eastern Europe's record-breaking cold spell, with alcohol regularly a contributing factor.
he health ministry said Thursday that nearly 4,000 others have been hospitalized with hypothermia and frostbite.
Emergency officials say in 90 percent of cases, people died because they were under the influence of alcohol, which increases the risk of hypothermia and generally decreases a person's ability to feel and respond to the cold.
The cold spell has prompted authorities to close nurseries, schools and colleges across the country.
Heavy snowfalls have also caused power outages and trapped hundreds of vehicles on motorways in southern Ukraine, as well as several ships in the Sea of Azov.
Since the end of January, Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine hav been pummeled by the deep freeze, which has brought the heaviest blizzards in recent memory.
Tens of thousands have been trapped in often-freezing homes and villages by walls of snow and unpassable roads, and officials have struggled to reach out to the vulnerable with emergency food airlifts.
Authorities in Russia said 205 people have died this year in the frigid cold, while Poland had 107.
Seven people have died in Romania during a 24 hour period this week, bringing the total there to 86 deaths.
In Lithuania, there have been 23 deaths.
Deaths were also reported in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia.
In hard-hit Romania, some 23,000 people remain isolated in 225 eastern communities where more than one week of heavy snow has blocked roads and wreaked havoc on the rail network.
Residents were worried that their houses could collapse under the heavy snow as authorities struggled to bring them food, water, medicine and wood.
he health ministry said Thursday that nearly 4,000 others have been hospitalized with hypothermia and frostbite.
Emergency officials say in 90 percent of cases, people died because they were under the influence of alcohol, which increases the risk of hypothermia and generally decreases a person's ability to feel and respond to the cold.
The cold spell has prompted authorities to close nurseries, schools and colleges across the country.
Heavy snowfalls have also caused power outages and trapped hundreds of vehicles on motorways in southern Ukraine, as well as several ships in the Sea of Azov.
Since the end of January, Eastern Europe, Russia and Ukraine hav been pummeled by the deep freeze, which has brought the heaviest blizzards in recent memory.
Tens of thousands have been trapped in often-freezing homes and villages by walls of snow and unpassable roads, and officials have struggled to reach out to the vulnerable with emergency food airlifts.
Authorities in Russia said 205 people have died this year in the frigid cold, while Poland had 107.
Seven people have died in Romania during a 24 hour period this week, bringing the total there to 86 deaths.
In Lithuania, there have been 23 deaths.
Deaths were also reported in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia.
In hard-hit Romania, some 23,000 people remain isolated in 225 eastern communities where more than one week of heavy snow has blocked roads and wreaked havoc on the rail network.
Residents were worried that their houses could collapse under the heavy snow as authorities struggled to bring them food, water, medicine and wood.
Saturday 11 February 2012
Putin positive but cautious about Russia's political future
On February 6, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin published his fourth program article, in which he continued to describe his views about the further development of the country. Also on Monday, Putin had a meeting with leading political scientists of the country to discuss the course of the election campaign.
"I do not want to say long monologues. It would be much more interesting if we could exchange opinions about the current situation and the prospects of the nation's development, about the economy and the social field, about the state construction, about democratic institutes and about the presidential campaign, of course," Putin said in the beginning of the meeting.
The meeting started with the discussion of the subject of election rights and the development of the party system. First and foremost, Putin said that the changes, which the sitting president had made, would definitely lead to the increase of the number of parties. However, the prime minister added, there were some hidden rocks, which he would like to avoid.
"We have a very complex country. It is not just a federative state. Our country is unique because we have national and territorial establishments. We have autonomous entities, there are ethnic nations, which are strongly connected to their territories. If we make granulate the parties, which is what we are heading to, then we must not allow any sort of national parties, otherwise we will pull the country apart," Putin said.
The same goes for the situation with direct gubernatorial elections and the elections of the members of the Federation Council. On the one hand, one should expand the framework of democratic procedures of brining regional leaders to power. On the other hand, one should be accurate here as well not to repeat the mistakes of the past, when local oligarchic and criminal structures would hide behind the backs of the candidates.
"Of course, one should not restrict the spheres of direct democracy for good because of those reasons. We should keep this detail in mind, though," Putin said.
In general, one may say that Putin is positive, although cautious, about the future of the above-mentioned reforms. Speaking about program statements from other candidacies, Putin said that all those people were experienced and reasonable individuals, whom he treated with respect.
"The good thing is that none of the current presidential candidates will betray the interests of the country. I can say that responsibly. I've known them for a long time, and I am sure of that," he said.
However, he added, his colleagues in the presidential race may very often say impossible things. "If a candidate suggests something unrealizable and then, if he is president, begins to implement them, they are not going to do anything but harm to the country," he said.
Commenting a suggestion from Gennady Zyuganov to elect judges on the level of cities and districts, Putin said that there was such practice in the USSR. "It was like that during the time of the USSR. However, all that electivity was a pure formality, just like all kinds of elections," he said.
As for the present-day situation, the law allows the election of peace justice. "Have they ever elected one in at least one entity of the Federation? No. There are representatives of the communist party, LDPR and Just Russia in those territories. Why is it so? Because it's expensive!" Putin said.
"The electivity of judges is becoming a political process. Judges must be out of politics," Putin said. "If we introduce the elections of judges, I think that we will create even more problems in the field, not to mention the fact that we will add the political aspect there," he noted.
Putin is skeptic about the total nationalization and total privatization. They both can lead to negative consequences due to objective reasons, which one should try to overcome, of course.
For instance, Sergei Mironov, a presidential candidate from Just Russia, said that he wanted to reduce prices on AI-95 petrol and diesel fuel to 15 rubles per liter. According to Putin, this can be technically possible. However, this will at least result in the shortage of the fuel. "We may not have the 95th petrol at gas stations. It will simply disappear in two or three days. They will simply stop to make this product. This is completely unprofessional, you know," he said about Mr. Mironov's initiative.
There are less serious obstacles on the way of such seemingly attractive initiatives as the nationalization of banks or promises to provide young families with homes. "This can only evoke the feelings of regrets. One would like to give everything for free to everyone. I would like to ask Mr. Zyuganov if they were able to give everything for free to all during the Soviet times. It did not happen. The problem was extremely serious, and it still seems that it is impossible to solve it today, although we try to solve it. The housing problem is one of those social problems, which we will be able to solve within the forthcoming five, six, seven, eight years - fundamentally. But it was impossible to give away everything for free back then and now," Putin said.
The same goes about the idea to give away land. According to Putin, this is pure populism. The problem is not about land per se. It is about the required infrastructure - electricity, water and heat supplies, roads, etc. "The state will be investing in the infrastructure, this is big money," Putin said.
Another popular idea - the establishment of the contractual army - is also all about the money. "The professional army is a positive thing, of course, taking into consideration the fact that military hardware has become more complicated. We need professionals for this army. We also think that we could recruit people from both military and civil institutes. Will we be able to do that by 2015? I am not sure. It goes about enormous resources. We have certain plans about it, and we will continue to work in this direction," Putin said.
As for the questions regarding the formation of the government after the elections, Putin said that he would like to attract people with different political views in the new government.
"It's important those people are professionals, although it is not going to be a coalition government in the classic perception of this word. When different parties come to the parliament, none of them has the majority, so they have to share. I do not think that this is very effective. When we have people sharing different views, then it very often happens that the decisions that they make are made on the base of compromise - they are not always effective," Putin said.
Any discussion about the rotation will make sense only after the results of the voting become known, he concluded.
"I do not want to say long monologues. It would be much more interesting if we could exchange opinions about the current situation and the prospects of the nation's development, about the economy and the social field, about the state construction, about democratic institutes and about the presidential campaign, of course," Putin said in the beginning of the meeting.
The meeting started with the discussion of the subject of election rights and the development of the party system. First and foremost, Putin said that the changes, which the sitting president had made, would definitely lead to the increase of the number of parties. However, the prime minister added, there were some hidden rocks, which he would like to avoid.
"We have a very complex country. It is not just a federative state. Our country is unique because we have national and territorial establishments. We have autonomous entities, there are ethnic nations, which are strongly connected to their territories. If we make granulate the parties, which is what we are heading to, then we must not allow any sort of national parties, otherwise we will pull the country apart," Putin said.
The same goes for the situation with direct gubernatorial elections and the elections of the members of the Federation Council. On the one hand, one should expand the framework of democratic procedures of brining regional leaders to power. On the other hand, one should be accurate here as well not to repeat the mistakes of the past, when local oligarchic and criminal structures would hide behind the backs of the candidates.
"Of course, one should not restrict the spheres of direct democracy for good because of those reasons. We should keep this detail in mind, though," Putin said.
In general, one may say that Putin is positive, although cautious, about the future of the above-mentioned reforms. Speaking about program statements from other candidacies, Putin said that all those people were experienced and reasonable individuals, whom he treated with respect.
"The good thing is that none of the current presidential candidates will betray the interests of the country. I can say that responsibly. I've known them for a long time, and I am sure of that," he said.
However, he added, his colleagues in the presidential race may very often say impossible things. "If a candidate suggests something unrealizable and then, if he is president, begins to implement them, they are not going to do anything but harm to the country," he said.
Commenting a suggestion from Gennady Zyuganov to elect judges on the level of cities and districts, Putin said that there was such practice in the USSR. "It was like that during the time of the USSR. However, all that electivity was a pure formality, just like all kinds of elections," he said.
As for the present-day situation, the law allows the election of peace justice. "Have they ever elected one in at least one entity of the Federation? No. There are representatives of the communist party, LDPR and Just Russia in those territories. Why is it so? Because it's expensive!" Putin said.
"The electivity of judges is becoming a political process. Judges must be out of politics," Putin said. "If we introduce the elections of judges, I think that we will create even more problems in the field, not to mention the fact that we will add the political aspect there," he noted.
Putin is skeptic about the total nationalization and total privatization. They both can lead to negative consequences due to objective reasons, which one should try to overcome, of course.
For instance, Sergei Mironov, a presidential candidate from Just Russia, said that he wanted to reduce prices on AI-95 petrol and diesel fuel to 15 rubles per liter. According to Putin, this can be technically possible. However, this will at least result in the shortage of the fuel. "We may not have the 95th petrol at gas stations. It will simply disappear in two or three days. They will simply stop to make this product. This is completely unprofessional, you know," he said about Mr. Mironov's initiative.
There are less serious obstacles on the way of such seemingly attractive initiatives as the nationalization of banks or promises to provide young families with homes. "This can only evoke the feelings of regrets. One would like to give everything for free to everyone. I would like to ask Mr. Zyuganov if they were able to give everything for free to all during the Soviet times. It did not happen. The problem was extremely serious, and it still seems that it is impossible to solve it today, although we try to solve it. The housing problem is one of those social problems, which we will be able to solve within the forthcoming five, six, seven, eight years - fundamentally. But it was impossible to give away everything for free back then and now," Putin said.
The same goes about the idea to give away land. According to Putin, this is pure populism. The problem is not about land per se. It is about the required infrastructure - electricity, water and heat supplies, roads, etc. "The state will be investing in the infrastructure, this is big money," Putin said.
Another popular idea - the establishment of the contractual army - is also all about the money. "The professional army is a positive thing, of course, taking into consideration the fact that military hardware has become more complicated. We need professionals for this army. We also think that we could recruit people from both military and civil institutes. Will we be able to do that by 2015? I am not sure. It goes about enormous resources. We have certain plans about it, and we will continue to work in this direction," Putin said.
As for the questions regarding the formation of the government after the elections, Putin said that he would like to attract people with different political views in the new government.
"It's important those people are professionals, although it is not going to be a coalition government in the classic perception of this word. When different parties come to the parliament, none of them has the majority, so they have to share. I do not think that this is very effective. When we have people sharing different views, then it very often happens that the decisions that they make are made on the base of compromise - they are not always effective," Putin said.
Any discussion about the rotation will make sense only after the results of the voting become known, he concluded.
Russia and China chain the dogs of war
The diplomatic struggle due to the crisis in Syria on Sunday (5th) moved into a new phase after failing in a week of overwhelming pressure from western powers to achieve the fall of Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
Meanwhile, Syrian forces discovered two workshops for the manufacture of explosives
US/westerm global domination objectives were masked in a draft resolution expressing the support of the Security Council on a proposal from the Arab League in which the Syrian president would transfer the government as a first step to elections and other actions.
The maneuver was shot down on Saturday by the double veto of Russia and China against the document, discussed for eight days by 15 members of this body and subjected to constant changes that resulted in three different versions.
The pressure from western nations, headed by the United States, France and Britain, forced a special session of tense extraordinary sessions and the vote ended with the rejection of the text with 13 votes in favor and two opposed.
Washington, Paris and London were accompanied in their vote by the 13 delegation members of the Security Council: Germany, Portugal, India, Colombia, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, South Africa, Togo and Azerbaijan.
n explaining his opposition to the initiative, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, criticized the attempts by some members who want to force regime change in Syria.
The text constituted a bad sign for the conflict and efforts to advance a political solution, by not considering that opposition groups are largely responsible for the violence in that country, the diplomat stated.
In this sense, promoters of the resolution indicated their demand that the Syrian government withdraw its forces unilaterally, and leave the ground free for armed opposition groups to continue their violence.
Likewise he criticized "influential members of the international community who since the beginning of the Syrian crisis are undermining the possibility of a political solution and urging regime change, stoking the opposition against the authorities."
For their part, the chief representative of China, Li Baodong, backed Russian proposals to amend the text under discussion and lamented that the project has been submitted to a vote without taking them into account.
Beijing's ambassador reiterated the need to seek a political solution to the Syrian crisis through dialogue, to restore stability in that country.
"The idea of a regime change does not contribute to an arrangement, but it complicates the situation in a State of great importance for the Middle East region," he underlined.
Churkin and Li also executed the veto that their respective countries imposed last October to another western project directed against the government of Damascus.
After yesterday's vote, the Permanent Representative of Syria to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, argued that the promoters of the text tried to turn the United Nations, created as an instrument for peace, into a tool for war.
He also accused the west and some Arab countries of funding and supporting the armed opposition terrorist groups that are attempting to overthrow the government of al-Assad by force and violence.
"If those responsible for this situation stop instigating and financing these terrorists, Syria can solve the crisis by itself through political dialogue," he said.
The document vetoed by Russia and China would have imposed six demands on Syrian officials, including "the withdrawal of armed forces and security for the cities, villages and people and their return to their barracks."
It also called for free movement and full access to "all relevant institutions of the Arab League and Arab and international media to all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor incidents that occur."
After the veto from Russia and China, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, took advantage of the opportunity to side with the countries that supported the resolution and regretted that the Security Council had been unable to agree on the project that supported the Arab League.
He thought that the failure to approve the text "undermines the role of the UN and the international community when the Syrian authorities should hear a unified voice that calls for an immediate end to 'their violence' against the Syrian people. The Security Council has missed an opportunity to decide on a united action to help end the crisis," he insisted.
Nevertheless, Moscow announced yesterday that its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Secretary of the National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, will travel next Tuesday to Damascus to meet with President al-Assad.
Perhaps this is the first movement of a new diplomatic battle between the promoters of a political solution and the instigators of regime change in that Arab country as occurred in Libya last October.
Meanwhile, Syrian forces discovered two workshops for the manufacture of explosives
US/westerm global domination objectives were masked in a draft resolution expressing the support of the Security Council on a proposal from the Arab League in which the Syrian president would transfer the government as a first step to elections and other actions.
The maneuver was shot down on Saturday by the double veto of Russia and China against the document, discussed for eight days by 15 members of this body and subjected to constant changes that resulted in three different versions.
The pressure from western nations, headed by the United States, France and Britain, forced a special session of tense extraordinary sessions and the vote ended with the rejection of the text with 13 votes in favor and two opposed.
Washington, Paris and London were accompanied in their vote by the 13 delegation members of the Security Council: Germany, Portugal, India, Colombia, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, South Africa, Togo and Azerbaijan.
n explaining his opposition to the initiative, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, criticized the attempts by some members who want to force regime change in Syria.
The text constituted a bad sign for the conflict and efforts to advance a political solution, by not considering that opposition groups are largely responsible for the violence in that country, the diplomat stated.
In this sense, promoters of the resolution indicated their demand that the Syrian government withdraw its forces unilaterally, and leave the ground free for armed opposition groups to continue their violence.
Likewise he criticized "influential members of the international community who since the beginning of the Syrian crisis are undermining the possibility of a political solution and urging regime change, stoking the opposition against the authorities."
For their part, the chief representative of China, Li Baodong, backed Russian proposals to amend the text under discussion and lamented that the project has been submitted to a vote without taking them into account.
Beijing's ambassador reiterated the need to seek a political solution to the Syrian crisis through dialogue, to restore stability in that country.
"The idea of a regime change does not contribute to an arrangement, but it complicates the situation in a State of great importance for the Middle East region," he underlined.
Churkin and Li also executed the veto that their respective countries imposed last October to another western project directed against the government of Damascus.
After yesterday's vote, the Permanent Representative of Syria to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, argued that the promoters of the text tried to turn the United Nations, created as an instrument for peace, into a tool for war.
He also accused the west and some Arab countries of funding and supporting the armed opposition terrorist groups that are attempting to overthrow the government of al-Assad by force and violence.
"If those responsible for this situation stop instigating and financing these terrorists, Syria can solve the crisis by itself through political dialogue," he said.
The document vetoed by Russia and China would have imposed six demands on Syrian officials, including "the withdrawal of armed forces and security for the cities, villages and people and their return to their barracks."
It also called for free movement and full access to "all relevant institutions of the Arab League and Arab and international media to all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor incidents that occur."
After the veto from Russia and China, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, took advantage of the opportunity to side with the countries that supported the resolution and regretted that the Security Council had been unable to agree on the project that supported the Arab League.
He thought that the failure to approve the text "undermines the role of the UN and the international community when the Syrian authorities should hear a unified voice that calls for an immediate end to 'their violence' against the Syrian people. The Security Council has missed an opportunity to decide on a united action to help end the crisis," he insisted.
Nevertheless, Moscow announced yesterday that its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Secretary of the National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, will travel next Tuesday to Damascus to meet with President al-Assad.
Perhaps this is the first movement of a new diplomatic battle between the promoters of a political solution and the instigators of regime change in that Arab country as occurred in Libya last October.
Russia can be in trouble because of Finland's new president
Finland elected a new president. It is Saul Niinistö, a 63-year-old right-wing politician, former Speaker of the Parliament and a representative of the Coalition Party. While he does not deliver Anti-Russian speeches, Russia still needs to be alarmed. Niinistö established himself as a politician who is not opposed to Finland's NATO membership.
Niinistö won by a large margin. He enlisted the support of nearly 62.6 percent, while his rival, the representative of the "green" Pekka Haavisto, scored 37.4 percent. The losing candidate initially was unacceptable for the residents of the Finnish outskirts. An open homosexual who never served in the Army and who quit the church is too much even for such an "ultra-democratic" country as Finland. This means that for the next six years the country will be led by Niinistö.
Saul Niinistö is one of the oldest Finnish politicians with 35 years of tenure. At various times he served as the Minister of Justice and Treasury, and the chairman of the Parliament. In 2006 he ran for presidency, but lost to the outgoing President Tarja Halonen at least by four percent. For some time Niinistö served as the Deputy Director of the European Investment Bank and knows about the European policy firsthand.
With regard to the basic internal political guidelines of the new President, he advocates for raising taxes on the rich. Before, such statement from the right-wing politicians was virtually impossible, but the crisis dictates its own terms. Niinistö is considered a champion of European integration. He strongly objects the exit of Finland from the euro zone, but openly called the acceptance of Greece into Euro zone a mistake.
Since Finland is a neighbor of Russia, Niinistö's attitude towards Russia is a very important issue. "Many Russian tourists travel to Finland. At the same time many Finns are interested in and own businesses in Russia. We must create such conditions that our relationship continues to evolve smoothly," said Niinistö in a recent interview with Finnish television. According to him, Russia does not present a threat to Finland.
Niinistö said that the question of Finland's accession to NATO could be put to a referendum. In Russia, these words can be interpreted as support for Euro-Atlantic integration of the neighboring country with which it has 1,300 kilometers of common border. Niinistö's companion in the Coalition Party, Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb of Finland, is known as one of the most ardent "Atlanticists."
Another issue is possible territorial claims of Finland for Vyborg, Karelia isthmus and part of the territory of Karelia. Niinistö never made these claims, neither did Finland. However, there are well-known politicians among those who seek the return of these territories. The dissatisfaction with the introduction of the ban on the sale of land in the border zone in Russia was met with resentment among the country's top leadership. The new President's position is fundamentally important.
There are a few other important issues in the Russian-Finnish relations. For example, visas. Although the Finnish Consulate is different from its many colleagues in the EU because of its effective work, the leadership of Finland has never talked about the total abolition of visas. Niinistö has not yet paid particular attention to this issue.
On the first night after winning the elections, Niinistö did something that Russia was not particularly happy with. He appointed the deputy of the European Parliament from the Green Party Heidi Hautala the Minister of International Cooperation in the affairs of Finland. She is known for her close ties with the Russian non-systemic opposition. In addition, she has repeatedly criticized Russia for poor care of the preservation of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
What could the Russian-Finnish relations under President Niinistö be like? Should Russia be afraid of their deterioration and the accession of Finland to NATO? A Finnish professor and political scientist, chairman of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee Johan Backman answered :
"Saul Niinistö cannot be called a supporter of the Finnish entry into NATO. He never openly spoke of accession to the North Atlantic Alliance. The very fact of his belonging to the right Coalition Party that is the biggest advocate for the development of ties with the U.S. says that he is not an "Atlanticist."
Niinistö's program on Russia reflects quite objective, realistic interests, focused on economic integration. Being a supporter of Finland's entry into NATO is equal to committing a political suicide. The recent polls showed that 68 percent of the Finns are dead set against NATO membership. Finland will never be its member, only a madman could demand this.
Niinistö has good political instincts. Here is an example from his biography. He was in Thailand in 2004 when the tsunami hit. Hundreds of people were killed around him, but he escaped. This man was born twice, and it left a mark on his life experiences. In addition, he worked briefly in the European structures, so for Russia such a partner is very convenient.
As for the topic of territorial claims, the very statement is offensive to people of Vyborg. This issue was settled in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. During the reign of President Martti Ahtisaari, who was born in Vyborg, there were a number of provocations on the Finnish side. But Niinistö is not a revanchist. "
Niinistö won by a large margin. He enlisted the support of nearly 62.6 percent, while his rival, the representative of the "green" Pekka Haavisto, scored 37.4 percent. The losing candidate initially was unacceptable for the residents of the Finnish outskirts. An open homosexual who never served in the Army and who quit the church is too much even for such an "ultra-democratic" country as Finland. This means that for the next six years the country will be led by Niinistö.
Saul Niinistö is one of the oldest Finnish politicians with 35 years of tenure. At various times he served as the Minister of Justice and Treasury, and the chairman of the Parliament. In 2006 he ran for presidency, but lost to the outgoing President Tarja Halonen at least by four percent. For some time Niinistö served as the Deputy Director of the European Investment Bank and knows about the European policy firsthand.
With regard to the basic internal political guidelines of the new President, he advocates for raising taxes on the rich. Before, such statement from the right-wing politicians was virtually impossible, but the crisis dictates its own terms. Niinistö is considered a champion of European integration. He strongly objects the exit of Finland from the euro zone, but openly called the acceptance of Greece into Euro zone a mistake.
Since Finland is a neighbor of Russia, Niinistö's attitude towards Russia is a very important issue. "Many Russian tourists travel to Finland. At the same time many Finns are interested in and own businesses in Russia. We must create such conditions that our relationship continues to evolve smoothly," said Niinistö in a recent interview with Finnish television. According to him, Russia does not present a threat to Finland.
Niinistö said that the question of Finland's accession to NATO could be put to a referendum. In Russia, these words can be interpreted as support for Euro-Atlantic integration of the neighboring country with which it has 1,300 kilometers of common border. Niinistö's companion in the Coalition Party, Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb of Finland, is known as one of the most ardent "Atlanticists."
Another issue is possible territorial claims of Finland for Vyborg, Karelia isthmus and part of the territory of Karelia. Niinistö never made these claims, neither did Finland. However, there are well-known politicians among those who seek the return of these territories. The dissatisfaction with the introduction of the ban on the sale of land in the border zone in Russia was met with resentment among the country's top leadership. The new President's position is fundamentally important.
There are a few other important issues in the Russian-Finnish relations. For example, visas. Although the Finnish Consulate is different from its many colleagues in the EU because of its effective work, the leadership of Finland has never talked about the total abolition of visas. Niinistö has not yet paid particular attention to this issue.
On the first night after winning the elections, Niinistö did something that Russia was not particularly happy with. He appointed the deputy of the European Parliament from the Green Party Heidi Hautala the Minister of International Cooperation in the affairs of Finland. She is known for her close ties with the Russian non-systemic opposition. In addition, she has repeatedly criticized Russia for poor care of the preservation of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
What could the Russian-Finnish relations under President Niinistö be like? Should Russia be afraid of their deterioration and the accession of Finland to NATO? A Finnish professor and political scientist, chairman of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee Johan Backman answered :
"Saul Niinistö cannot be called a supporter of the Finnish entry into NATO. He never openly spoke of accession to the North Atlantic Alliance. The very fact of his belonging to the right Coalition Party that is the biggest advocate for the development of ties with the U.S. says that he is not an "Atlanticist."
Niinistö's program on Russia reflects quite objective, realistic interests, focused on economic integration. Being a supporter of Finland's entry into NATO is equal to committing a political suicide. The recent polls showed that 68 percent of the Finns are dead set against NATO membership. Finland will never be its member, only a madman could demand this.
Niinistö has good political instincts. Here is an example from his biography. He was in Thailand in 2004 when the tsunami hit. Hundreds of people were killed around him, but he escaped. This man was born twice, and it left a mark on his life experiences. In addition, he worked briefly in the European structures, so for Russia such a partner is very convenient.
As for the topic of territorial claims, the very statement is offensive to people of Vyborg. This issue was settled in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. During the reign of President Martti Ahtisaari, who was born in Vyborg, there were a number of provocations on the Finnish side. But Niinistö is not a revanchist. "
Russian communists politically impotent, albeit prone to dictatorship
Presidential candidate Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, released quite exotic ideas about the future of the political development of the country. If Mr. Zyuganov wins the presidential election, he promises to change the Constitution and abolish the position of the prime minister.
Mr. Zyuganov became the last candidate, who presented his vision about the new government and new political reforms in the country. One shall admit that the communist leader is planning curious changes in Russia indeed.
First and foremost, Zyuganov wants to establish the government of people's trust. The new government will consist only of professionals who have remarkable education, extensive work experience and abilities to work in the team. As long as the world is expecting another wave of the economic crisis, as Zyuganov said, one would have to combine the positions of the president and the prime minister for the period of the crisis.
This would of course require adequate changes in the text of the Russian Constitution. To make it happen, the leader of Russian communists offers to set up the constitutional council to develop and introduce the adequate amendments. The council, Zyuganov added, would be chaired by Sergei Baburin and Yury Boldyrev. The political evolution of these two men is like a salad of Yeltsin, Yabloko, Just Russia and finally the CPRF.
As a matter of fact, Zyuganov intends to establish a mild form of dictatorship. He wants to have the "people's" government and hold unlimited powers as the head of state.
Boris Yeltsin did something like that in 1991. When he became the President of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), he chaired the government too. Making a speech at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, Yeltsin surprised the country and the world. He stated that he would chair the Russian government, or the "cabinet of reforms," as he put it, during this critical time of the country's history.
The eye-opening news generated a joke: "When looking for the prime minister, Yeltsin looked into the mirror and chose himself."
The democratic community was hailing the "courageous" decision of the president. There were also many of those who said that Yeltsin was not competent at all as far as the economic side of the question was concerned. No one listened to them, though. Everyone knows the outcome of the experiment connected with the government of Yegor Gaidar.
Such attempts were taken during the Soviet times as well. The excessive concentration of power in the hands of Joseph Stalin was later interpreted as "personality cult." Nikita Khrushchev also tried to combine high-ranking official positions, for which he was subsequently criticized. It was later decided not to combine the positions of the First Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. However, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko later used the new opportunity to combine the positions of the General Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council.
Mikhail Gorbachev was not an exception either. He set a record on the number of official positions that were taken in Soviet history. In May 1989, he became the chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR. It is worthy of note that Boris Yeltsin criticized Gorbachev for doing that and said that the concentration of power in the hands of one person contradicted to democratic principles.
"When there are no clear ideas about the development of economy and the social field, when there's nothing to say about the strengthening of Russia's international position - this is the time when such absurd suggestions appear. Change the Constitution and make president and prime minister become one. All this testifies to Zyuganov's political weakness," Dmitry Vyatkin, a member of United Russia party, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee for constitutional legislation said.
Zyuganov's other initiatives raise many questions too. For example, the leader of the Communist Party believes that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Left Front, should be in charge of youth policies. Mr. Udaltsov is known for his activities to organize unauthorized actions of protest.
Moreover, Gennady Zyuganov said that Grigory Yavlinsky, the leader of Yabloko Party, was a "professional economist." However, Zyuganov preferred not to include Yavlinsky in the structure of his "new government" for personal reasons. Zyuganov claimed that Yavlinsky literally compared communists to fascists in his TV ad. "I consider this insulting," Zyuganov said.
Mr. Zyuganov became the last candidate, who presented his vision about the new government and new political reforms in the country. One shall admit that the communist leader is planning curious changes in Russia indeed.
First and foremost, Zyuganov wants to establish the government of people's trust. The new government will consist only of professionals who have remarkable education, extensive work experience and abilities to work in the team. As long as the world is expecting another wave of the economic crisis, as Zyuganov said, one would have to combine the positions of the president and the prime minister for the period of the crisis.
This would of course require adequate changes in the text of the Russian Constitution. To make it happen, the leader of Russian communists offers to set up the constitutional council to develop and introduce the adequate amendments. The council, Zyuganov added, would be chaired by Sergei Baburin and Yury Boldyrev. The political evolution of these two men is like a salad of Yeltsin, Yabloko, Just Russia and finally the CPRF.
As a matter of fact, Zyuganov intends to establish a mild form of dictatorship. He wants to have the "people's" government and hold unlimited powers as the head of state.
Boris Yeltsin did something like that in 1991. When he became the President of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), he chaired the government too. Making a speech at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, Yeltsin surprised the country and the world. He stated that he would chair the Russian government, or the "cabinet of reforms," as he put it, during this critical time of the country's history.
The eye-opening news generated a joke: "When looking for the prime minister, Yeltsin looked into the mirror and chose himself."
The democratic community was hailing the "courageous" decision of the president. There were also many of those who said that Yeltsin was not competent at all as far as the economic side of the question was concerned. No one listened to them, though. Everyone knows the outcome of the experiment connected with the government of Yegor Gaidar.
Such attempts were taken during the Soviet times as well. The excessive concentration of power in the hands of Joseph Stalin was later interpreted as "personality cult." Nikita Khrushchev also tried to combine high-ranking official positions, for which he was subsequently criticized. It was later decided not to combine the positions of the First Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. However, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko later used the new opportunity to combine the positions of the General Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council.
Mikhail Gorbachev was not an exception either. He set a record on the number of official positions that were taken in Soviet history. In May 1989, he became the chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR. It is worthy of note that Boris Yeltsin criticized Gorbachev for doing that and said that the concentration of power in the hands of one person contradicted to democratic principles.
"When there are no clear ideas about the development of economy and the social field, when there's nothing to say about the strengthening of Russia's international position - this is the time when such absurd suggestions appear. Change the Constitution and make president and prime minister become one. All this testifies to Zyuganov's political weakness," Dmitry Vyatkin, a member of United Russia party, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee for constitutional legislation said.
Zyuganov's other initiatives raise many questions too. For example, the leader of the Communist Party believes that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Left Front, should be in charge of youth policies. Mr. Udaltsov is known for his activities to organize unauthorized actions of protest.
Moreover, Gennady Zyuganov said that Grigory Yavlinsky, the leader of Yabloko Party, was a "professional economist." However, Zyuganov preferred not to include Yavlinsky in the structure of his "new government" for personal reasons. Zyuganov claimed that Yavlinsky literally compared communists to fascists in his TV ad. "I consider this insulting," Zyuganov said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)