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.
Showing posts with label victor yankovych. Show all posts
Showing posts with label victor yankovych. Show all posts
Saturday, 25 February 2012
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Uncertain World: Yanukovych Has Boosted Ukraine’s Stability – But For How Long?
MOSCOW, Russia -- The world’s view of Ukraine has changed dramatically since Viktor Yanukovych was elected president.
Before that, Russia, the EU and the United States all thought that Ukraine’s energy problems and the future of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet could lead to acute crises and possibly even military intervention.
Events in Ukraine were breaking news from the battlefield of geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West.
Since then, that torrent of Ukrainian news has shrunk to a rivulet of journalists’ complaints about government pressure. The investigation into the alleged crimes of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her entourage is proceeding at a snail’s pace, with European politicians only rarely speaking up on their behalf.
Ukraine’s western and eastern provinces continue to debate whose version of history is correct, and sporadic warnings of an impending economic catastrophe have so far come to naught.
Ukraine’s gas transit talks with both Moscow and Brussels have essentially ground to a halt. Even the termination of constitutional reform, which restored the president’s powers, and the decision to extend its legislative and executive powers went almost unnoticed by the international community.
And lastly, the Russian-Ukrainian deal of April 2010, under which Russia agreed to cut the price of its gas supplies to Ukraine by 30% in exchange for a 25-year extension to the lease allowing its Black Sea Fleet to remain stationed in Sevastopol, were only in the news for a few days.
Moreover, Russia’s expected economic expansion in Ukraine was limited to a few high-profile statements by Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s evasive replies.
Ukraine has been relegated to the political periphery.
This is, in part, for objective reasons. The recent economic crisis has shifted the priorities of the world’s leading powers. The EU and the Untied States are busy dealing with their own internal problems and have little time for external developments.
Economic recovery has done nothing to revive their pre-crisis interests. Instead it has bolstered new challenges, such as the impressive growth of China and Asia more broadly, and the ongoing revolts with an unpredictable outcome across the Middle East and North Africa.
These new events have overshadowed all those conflicts that, even recently, seemed dramatic. Nearly all post-Soviet republics are now less of a priority.
When the pressure from the West eased, Russia, which almost always acts reactively, scaled down its aggressive policies there, too.
On the other hand, Ukraine has also changed. No matter what you think about the “orange” ideology, it is a fact that the reign of Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko was marked by numerous domestic and foreign policy shocks.
These upheavals were caused both by the entirely natural desire for change after stagnation at the end of Leonid Kuchma’s term in office, and the new authorities’ sheer incompetence and inability to formulate any reasonable strategy and coordinate their approach to reform.
They tried to compensate for their managerial flops by foregrounding ideology. But their attempts to effect a rapid change in the ethnic identity of such a complex country as Ukraine, while simultaneously splitting from Russia, only escalated internal tensions.
On top of that, alliances collapsed as former allies started fighting each other.
While all these turbulent processes were underway, Ukraine remained the focus of international attention.
Objective reasons included U.S. and European interests, with the subjective reason being that Yushchenko recognized that confrontation with Russia was a reliable way of holding his Western partners’ attention.
Although Russia’s policy was neither ideal nor fail-safe, Ukraine was far too willing to add fuel to even the smallest fire. Crucially, Yushchenko believed that the further Ukraine moves from Russia, the better its future will be.
But he went too far once too often. There came a day when foreign partners and Ukrainians alike became tired of endless domestic political scandals and clashes with Russia.
Their current apathy is a result of this five-year “orange” rule.
That is why Viktor Yanukovych needed only a year to virtually take complete control over the country’s political system without encountering serious internal or external resistance.
The fleet-for-gas swap has allowed the sides to settle two massive problems without needing to impose any unpleasant conditions. Russia turned money it would have never received from Ukraine anyway into a “gift,” while Ukraine allowed Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which has no influence over the balance of forces in the country, to stay put.
Seeing this, the external forces relaxed: in any case the last thing they need is new hot spots.
A year after his inauguration, Yanukovych has consolidated power, eased tensions, and proved that Ukraine is not as unreliable as many had become accustomed to think.
He has created conditions for a consistent political and economic strategy, which he should now formulate. But he has been working so hard to stabilize the country, that he has not had time to formulate this new strategy.
He is only at the beginning of his term, but life shows that political honeymoons do not last long.
You cannot keep exploiting people’s disappointment with your predecessor forever, and the lack of any clear opposition soon becomes a major drawback: you can not continue to blame your predecessor for painful decisions or use him to help ease tensions.
Many post-Soviet republics lack an opposition, but Ukraine is not one of them, and besides, such regimes eventually become mired in deadlock that can only be broken by major social upheavals.
Geopolitically, the lack of external rivalry, which in any case was only tearing Ukraine apart, is certainly a boon.
But Ukraine still needs to take a stand. The country now finds itself suspended between Russia, (and contrary to claims made by Yanukovych’s opponents, Ukraine will not cede its sovereignty to Russia) and the EU, which currently has little time for Ukraine.
Ukraine can only maintain this delicate balancing act for a short time because progress is impossible without movement.
As Yushchenko’s presidency showed, moving in one direction only risks aggravating the problems the country faces while maneuvering requires both flexibility and careful consideration. If Yanukovych has these qualities, now is the time to prove it.
Before that, Russia, the EU and the United States all thought that Ukraine’s energy problems and the future of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet could lead to acute crises and possibly even military intervention.
Events in Ukraine were breaking news from the battlefield of geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West.
Since then, that torrent of Ukrainian news has shrunk to a rivulet of journalists’ complaints about government pressure. The investigation into the alleged crimes of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her entourage is proceeding at a snail’s pace, with European politicians only rarely speaking up on their behalf.
Ukraine’s western and eastern provinces continue to debate whose version of history is correct, and sporadic warnings of an impending economic catastrophe have so far come to naught.
Ukraine’s gas transit talks with both Moscow and Brussels have essentially ground to a halt. Even the termination of constitutional reform, which restored the president’s powers, and the decision to extend its legislative and executive powers went almost unnoticed by the international community.
And lastly, the Russian-Ukrainian deal of April 2010, under which Russia agreed to cut the price of its gas supplies to Ukraine by 30% in exchange for a 25-year extension to the lease allowing its Black Sea Fleet to remain stationed in Sevastopol, were only in the news for a few days.
Moreover, Russia’s expected economic expansion in Ukraine was limited to a few high-profile statements by Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s evasive replies.
Ukraine has been relegated to the political periphery.
This is, in part, for objective reasons. The recent economic crisis has shifted the priorities of the world’s leading powers. The EU and the Untied States are busy dealing with their own internal problems and have little time for external developments.
Economic recovery has done nothing to revive their pre-crisis interests. Instead it has bolstered new challenges, such as the impressive growth of China and Asia more broadly, and the ongoing revolts with an unpredictable outcome across the Middle East and North Africa.
These new events have overshadowed all those conflicts that, even recently, seemed dramatic. Nearly all post-Soviet republics are now less of a priority.
When the pressure from the West eased, Russia, which almost always acts reactively, scaled down its aggressive policies there, too.
On the other hand, Ukraine has also changed. No matter what you think about the “orange” ideology, it is a fact that the reign of Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko was marked by numerous domestic and foreign policy shocks.
These upheavals were caused both by the entirely natural desire for change after stagnation at the end of Leonid Kuchma’s term in office, and the new authorities’ sheer incompetence and inability to formulate any reasonable strategy and coordinate their approach to reform.
They tried to compensate for their managerial flops by foregrounding ideology. But their attempts to effect a rapid change in the ethnic identity of such a complex country as Ukraine, while simultaneously splitting from Russia, only escalated internal tensions.
On top of that, alliances collapsed as former allies started fighting each other.
While all these turbulent processes were underway, Ukraine remained the focus of international attention.
Objective reasons included U.S. and European interests, with the subjective reason being that Yushchenko recognized that confrontation with Russia was a reliable way of holding his Western partners’ attention.
Although Russia’s policy was neither ideal nor fail-safe, Ukraine was far too willing to add fuel to even the smallest fire. Crucially, Yushchenko believed that the further Ukraine moves from Russia, the better its future will be.
But he went too far once too often. There came a day when foreign partners and Ukrainians alike became tired of endless domestic political scandals and clashes with Russia.
Their current apathy is a result of this five-year “orange” rule.
That is why Viktor Yanukovych needed only a year to virtually take complete control over the country’s political system without encountering serious internal or external resistance.
The fleet-for-gas swap has allowed the sides to settle two massive problems without needing to impose any unpleasant conditions. Russia turned money it would have never received from Ukraine anyway into a “gift,” while Ukraine allowed Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which has no influence over the balance of forces in the country, to stay put.
Seeing this, the external forces relaxed: in any case the last thing they need is new hot spots.
A year after his inauguration, Yanukovych has consolidated power, eased tensions, and proved that Ukraine is not as unreliable as many had become accustomed to think.
He has created conditions for a consistent political and economic strategy, which he should now formulate. But he has been working so hard to stabilize the country, that he has not had time to formulate this new strategy.
He is only at the beginning of his term, but life shows that political honeymoons do not last long.
You cannot keep exploiting people’s disappointment with your predecessor forever, and the lack of any clear opposition soon becomes a major drawback: you can not continue to blame your predecessor for painful decisions or use him to help ease tensions.
Many post-Soviet republics lack an opposition, but Ukraine is not one of them, and besides, such regimes eventually become mired in deadlock that can only be broken by major social upheavals.
Geopolitically, the lack of external rivalry, which in any case was only tearing Ukraine apart, is certainly a boon.
But Ukraine still needs to take a stand. The country now finds itself suspended between Russia, (and contrary to claims made by Yanukovych’s opponents, Ukraine will not cede its sovereignty to Russia) and the EU, which currently has little time for Ukraine.
Ukraine can only maintain this delicate balancing act for a short time because progress is impossible without movement.
As Yushchenko’s presidency showed, moving in one direction only risks aggravating the problems the country faces while maneuvering requires both flexibility and careful consideration. If Yanukovych has these qualities, now is the time to prove it.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Yanukovych Turns Up Heat On Rival
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian authorities attacked the previous government of Yulia Tymoshenko by releasing an international report that alleges several hundred million dollars were misspent during her term.
The Ukrainian authorities raised their attacks on the previous government of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to an international level on Oct. 14, when an all-star team of U.S. lawyers and investigators released a report alleging that several hundred million dollars were misspent during her latest term as prime minister, from the start of 2008 to March 4.
The 176-page report by two U.S. law firms, Trout Cacheris and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, as well as detective firm Kroll, suggested that members of Tymoshenko’s government made big bucks from kickbacks and money laundering using foreign shell companies.
The investigation also alleges that the ex-prime minister’s team diverted state money to her presidential election campaign, which she lost to President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 7.
The firms – known for their work protecting the images of some of Yanukovych’s business and political allies in the past – were hired by the Ukraine’s government to audit their predecessors.
The investigators and Yanukovych’s government touted the report as evidence of his commitment to fighting Ukraine’s endemic corruption.
They said it represents the first serious attempt to get to the bottom of graft in a country that hears many corruption allegations among politicians, but has seen no high-level conviction.
But the opposition claims the investigation is a smear campaign aimed at discrediting Tymoshenko and her allies.
They say it is the latest in a string of attempts to clamp down on critics and opponents of Yanukovych, who they say is taking Ukraine on an authoritarian path.
The report doesn’t name Tymoshenko, but investigators made clear that they considered her to be at the center of many allegations.
The report picked six cases which it said “were selected in order to provide a survey … of suspect government actions during the stated period of time.”
The investigators blamed Tymoshenko’s government for misappropriating taxpayers’ money when buying sugar, vaccines, importing cars and even selling carbon credits to other countries.
In one of the more serious allegations, the report claims that 200 million euros out of the 320 million euros Ukraine received for selling Kyoto protocol carbon credits were spent on pensions instead of being used exclusively to finance environmental projects.
Two lawsuits have already been filed in the West in connection with the results of the investigation.
The Ukrainian Emergency Ministry on Oct. 11 filed a lawsuit in a court in the United Kingdom against British firm Legal Business Consultants accusing it of being a part of an international conspiracy allegedly involved in the sale of 27 depreciated medical vehicles to the ministry at inflated prices.
In the end the cars were allegedly decorated with Tymoshenko banners and used during her electoral campaign.
On Sept. 17 Ukrvaktsina, a state-run entity within Ukraine’s Ministry of Health, filed a court action in a U.S. court charging Ukrainian firm Interfarm, along with U.S. based Olden group, of selling overpriced vaccines to Ukrvaktsina, linking the conspiracy to the Tymoshenko government.
Hryhoriy Nemyria, a former deputy prime minister and a close adviser to Tymoshenko, said the report is politically motivated. He denied large-scale corruption in the government, but said he couldn’t comment on the specific cases until he had studied the accusations more thoroughly.
“Instead of reforming the Ukrainian economy they are engaged in a witch hunt of the opposition. We denounce these findings. They are obviously politically motivated,” Nemyria said.
Nemyria pointed out that these firms had only looked into the work of Tymoshenko’s government, and not Yanukovych’s from 2006-7.
The representatives of the three firms that did the report denied this to be a witch hunt and said they do not have any agenda behind.
Kroll and Akin Gump are not new to Ukraine.
After the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze, Kroll was hired in 2001 by then-President Leonid Kuchma’s son-in-law Viktor Pinchuk to probe the case.
In the end the firm issued a report saying Kuchma wasn’t involved, which was widely viewed an attempt to absolve him from suspicion arising from alleged discussions he had with senior officials about dealing with the journalist.
Akin Gump lawyers have also had experience working in Ukraine.
The firm’s lawyers have in the past defended Ukraine’s richest oligarchs and strongest Yanukovych’s backers – Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man, and gas tycoon Dmytro Firtash.
At times these firms have pressured investigative journalists who write stories about both Ukrainian businessmen by threatening to file lawsuits against them.
Both Kroll’s and Akin Gump’s representatives said they have clients around the world but denied having any conflict of interest in this investigation and added that in their findings there were guided by facts.
While normally such cases are handled by the Ukrainian domestic state prosecutors and investigators, in this case the government decided to add more international flavor – and legitimacy – to that by filing the lawsuits to western courts that bear more credibility than Ukrainian ones.
Volodymyr Fesenko, director of the Kyiv-based Horshenin Institute think tank, said the new government is looking to create an image for itself as an anti-corruption crusader, as well as to discredit the opposition.
The report doesn’t mention Tymoshenko or any of her top lieutenants, but investigators left no doubt as to who was the focus.
“In our report one can see a list of transactions that lead to Tymoshenko,” said Mark Macdougall, a partner at Akin Gump, at the press conference in Kyiv on Oct. 14.
“I think we’ll hear some names down the road. And that’s when politics will start.” said Fesenko.
When asked how much tax payers’ money was and will be spent on the U.S. lawyers and investigators, Plato Cacheris with Trout Cacheris law firm said “it was much less than the money stolen” and would not elaborate further.
In turn, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry also refused to reveal any details, calling it a commercial secret.
A senior government official said that $2 million in state budget funds had been spent on the first stage of the audit.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue, said the aim was to recover a sum up to 100 times larger than the firms’ fees.
The official added that two further stages of investigations are planned, which will cost roughly the same each.
“So far we have done what we needed to. But there is a high possibility the Cabinet will ask us to do some other things,” Cacheris said.
The Ukrainian authorities raised their attacks on the previous government of opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to an international level on Oct. 14, when an all-star team of U.S. lawyers and investigators released a report alleging that several hundred million dollars were misspent during her latest term as prime minister, from the start of 2008 to March 4.
The 176-page report by two U.S. law firms, Trout Cacheris and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, as well as detective firm Kroll, suggested that members of Tymoshenko’s government made big bucks from kickbacks and money laundering using foreign shell companies.
The investigation also alleges that the ex-prime minister’s team diverted state money to her presidential election campaign, which she lost to President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 7.
The firms – known for their work protecting the images of some of Yanukovych’s business and political allies in the past – were hired by the Ukraine’s government to audit their predecessors.
The investigators and Yanukovych’s government touted the report as evidence of his commitment to fighting Ukraine’s endemic corruption.
They said it represents the first serious attempt to get to the bottom of graft in a country that hears many corruption allegations among politicians, but has seen no high-level conviction.
But the opposition claims the investigation is a smear campaign aimed at discrediting Tymoshenko and her allies.
They say it is the latest in a string of attempts to clamp down on critics and opponents of Yanukovych, who they say is taking Ukraine on an authoritarian path.
The report doesn’t name Tymoshenko, but investigators made clear that they considered her to be at the center of many allegations.
The report picked six cases which it said “were selected in order to provide a survey … of suspect government actions during the stated period of time.”
The investigators blamed Tymoshenko’s government for misappropriating taxpayers’ money when buying sugar, vaccines, importing cars and even selling carbon credits to other countries.
In one of the more serious allegations, the report claims that 200 million euros out of the 320 million euros Ukraine received for selling Kyoto protocol carbon credits were spent on pensions instead of being used exclusively to finance environmental projects.
Two lawsuits have already been filed in the West in connection with the results of the investigation.
The Ukrainian Emergency Ministry on Oct. 11 filed a lawsuit in a court in the United Kingdom against British firm Legal Business Consultants accusing it of being a part of an international conspiracy allegedly involved in the sale of 27 depreciated medical vehicles to the ministry at inflated prices.
In the end the cars were allegedly decorated with Tymoshenko banners and used during her electoral campaign.
On Sept. 17 Ukrvaktsina, a state-run entity within Ukraine’s Ministry of Health, filed a court action in a U.S. court charging Ukrainian firm Interfarm, along with U.S. based Olden group, of selling overpriced vaccines to Ukrvaktsina, linking the conspiracy to the Tymoshenko government.
Hryhoriy Nemyria, a former deputy prime minister and a close adviser to Tymoshenko, said the report is politically motivated. He denied large-scale corruption in the government, but said he couldn’t comment on the specific cases until he had studied the accusations more thoroughly.
“Instead of reforming the Ukrainian economy they are engaged in a witch hunt of the opposition. We denounce these findings. They are obviously politically motivated,” Nemyria said.
Nemyria pointed out that these firms had only looked into the work of Tymoshenko’s government, and not Yanukovych’s from 2006-7.
The representatives of the three firms that did the report denied this to be a witch hunt and said they do not have any agenda behind.
Kroll and Akin Gump are not new to Ukraine.
After the murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze, Kroll was hired in 2001 by then-President Leonid Kuchma’s son-in-law Viktor Pinchuk to probe the case.
In the end the firm issued a report saying Kuchma wasn’t involved, which was widely viewed an attempt to absolve him from suspicion arising from alleged discussions he had with senior officials about dealing with the journalist.
Akin Gump lawyers have also had experience working in Ukraine.
The firm’s lawyers have in the past defended Ukraine’s richest oligarchs and strongest Yanukovych’s backers – Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man, and gas tycoon Dmytro Firtash.
At times these firms have pressured investigative journalists who write stories about both Ukrainian businessmen by threatening to file lawsuits against them.
Both Kroll’s and Akin Gump’s representatives said they have clients around the world but denied having any conflict of interest in this investigation and added that in their findings there were guided by facts.
While normally such cases are handled by the Ukrainian domestic state prosecutors and investigators, in this case the government decided to add more international flavor – and legitimacy – to that by filing the lawsuits to western courts that bear more credibility than Ukrainian ones.
Volodymyr Fesenko, director of the Kyiv-based Horshenin Institute think tank, said the new government is looking to create an image for itself as an anti-corruption crusader, as well as to discredit the opposition.
The report doesn’t mention Tymoshenko or any of her top lieutenants, but investigators left no doubt as to who was the focus.
“In our report one can see a list of transactions that lead to Tymoshenko,” said Mark Macdougall, a partner at Akin Gump, at the press conference in Kyiv on Oct. 14.
“I think we’ll hear some names down the road. And that’s when politics will start.” said Fesenko.
When asked how much tax payers’ money was and will be spent on the U.S. lawyers and investigators, Plato Cacheris with Trout Cacheris law firm said “it was much less than the money stolen” and would not elaborate further.
In turn, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry also refused to reveal any details, calling it a commercial secret.
A senior government official said that $2 million in state budget funds had been spent on the first stage of the audit.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue, said the aim was to recover a sum up to 100 times larger than the firms’ fees.
The official added that two further stages of investigations are planned, which will cost roughly the same each.
“So far we have done what we needed to. But there is a high possibility the Cabinet will ask us to do some other things,” Cacheris said.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Monday, 15 February 2010
Medvedev Invites Ukraine President - Elect To Moscow
MOSCOW, Russia -- Russia invited Ukrainian president-elect Viktor Yanukovich on Monday to visit Moscow, aiming to consolidate improved relations with Kiev after years of acrimony under the outgoing president.
President Dmitry Medvedev made the invitation in a letter to Yanukovich released by the Kremlin press service.Ukraine's electoral commission confirmed on Sunday Yanukovich's win over his rival Yulia Tymoshenko in a runoff on February 7, paving the way for his inauguration. Tymoshenko says she intends challenging the result in court.If Yanukovich accepts the invitation, it could be his first foreign trip as president, reinforcing expectations that he will steer the former Soviet republic back towards Moscow's orbit.In a pointed reference to outgoing President Viktor Yushchenko, Medvedev's letter said the election showed that Ukrainians "desired to end the historically doomed attempts to sow discord between the people of our countries."Both Yanukovich and Tymoshenko said they wanted better relations with Moscow after five years of estrangement under Yushchenko, who was swept to power on a wave of anti-Russian sentiment and wanted Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO.Western leaders have also congratulated Yanukovich on his win and praised the poll for meeting democratic standards.During campaigning, Yanukovich stressed the "historical partnership" of Ukraine and Russia that goes beyond strategic relations. But he has also promised to tackle the country's economic problems and move it closer to the EU.
President Dmitry Medvedev made the invitation in a letter to Yanukovich released by the Kremlin press service.Ukraine's electoral commission confirmed on Sunday Yanukovich's win over his rival Yulia Tymoshenko in a runoff on February 7, paving the way for his inauguration. Tymoshenko says she intends challenging the result in court.If Yanukovich accepts the invitation, it could be his first foreign trip as president, reinforcing expectations that he will steer the former Soviet republic back towards Moscow's orbit.In a pointed reference to outgoing President Viktor Yushchenko, Medvedev's letter said the election showed that Ukrainians "desired to end the historically doomed attempts to sow discord between the people of our countries."Both Yanukovich and Tymoshenko said they wanted better relations with Moscow after five years of estrangement under Yushchenko, who was swept to power on a wave of anti-Russian sentiment and wanted Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO.Western leaders have also congratulated Yanukovich on his win and praised the poll for meeting democratic standards.During campaigning, Yanukovich stressed the "historical partnership" of Ukraine and Russia that goes beyond strategic relations. But he has also promised to tackle the country's economic problems and move it closer to the EU.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Political Popularity Ratings
KIEV, Ukraine -- After the collapse of coalition negotiations between Victor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko, both leaders announced they will run for president. Polls also show them leading a crowded field of candidates ahead of the 2010 vote.
After more than a week of intrigues and intensive negotiations behind closed doors on forming a mega-coalition between opposition leader Victor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, talks collapsed amid mutual distrust.Yanukovych on June 7 said the Party of the Regions would never agree to elect Ukraine’s president in parliament. Just such a constitutional change was part of the talks, along with an extension of the current parliament's term until 2014.A disappointed Tymsohenko addressed the nation the same day, blaming Yanukovych for pulling out of the talks “without warning.”A telephone poll conducted among 1,000 Ukrainians on June 7 by the Gorshenin Institute, a Kyiv think tank, showed that 63 percent approved of Yanukovych’s move and supported his argument that the president should be elected by national vote. Both leaders said in their televised addresses to the nation that they would run for president, entering a crowded field as front-runners, according to most polls.A recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology finds 34.7 percent favor Yanukovych and Tymoshenko trailing him with 22 percent. Behind them are former Verkhovna Rada speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk with 19.2 percent, Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko with 6 percent and President Victor Yushchenko with just 3 percent.The next presidential election will most likely take place on Jan. 17, 2010. But the date has not been officially set by parliament.Tymoshenko’s leader in parliament, Ivan Kyrylenko, said his faction would continue to push for a popular coalition to combat the economic crisis. “We’re not giving up hope and will not stop [negotiating.] There is no alternative to unification of effort,” Kyrylenko said on June 9.Meanwhile, Ukrainians expressed disgust at the political infighting and gridlock that is stalling government action on a number of issues.
After more than a week of intrigues and intensive negotiations behind closed doors on forming a mega-coalition between opposition leader Victor Yanukovych and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, talks collapsed amid mutual distrust.Yanukovych on June 7 said the Party of the Regions would never agree to elect Ukraine’s president in parliament. Just such a constitutional change was part of the talks, along with an extension of the current parliament's term until 2014.A disappointed Tymsohenko addressed the nation the same day, blaming Yanukovych for pulling out of the talks “without warning.”A telephone poll conducted among 1,000 Ukrainians on June 7 by the Gorshenin Institute, a Kyiv think tank, showed that 63 percent approved of Yanukovych’s move and supported his argument that the president should be elected by national vote. Both leaders said in their televised addresses to the nation that they would run for president, entering a crowded field as front-runners, according to most polls.A recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology finds 34.7 percent favor Yanukovych and Tymoshenko trailing him with 22 percent. Behind them are former Verkhovna Rada speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk with 19.2 percent, Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko with 6 percent and President Victor Yushchenko with just 3 percent.The next presidential election will most likely take place on Jan. 17, 2010. But the date has not been officially set by parliament.Tymoshenko’s leader in parliament, Ivan Kyrylenko, said his faction would continue to push for a popular coalition to combat the economic crisis. “We’re not giving up hope and will not stop [negotiating.] There is no alternative to unification of effort,” Kyrylenko said on June 9.Meanwhile, Ukrainians expressed disgust at the political infighting and gridlock that is stalling government action on a number of issues.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Tymoshenko Slams Yanukovych For Sabotaging Plans To Form ‘Unity’ Coalition, Launches Presidential Campaign
KIEV, Ukraine -- In a televised address to the nation that aired at 8 p.m. on June 7, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko slammed opposition leader Victor Yanukovych. She accused him of sabotaging talks to form a coalition that would have united four leading political groupings in the country, and helped to pull Ukraine out of economic recession.
“I believed that on this day we would unite all major political forces into a unity coalition. All agreed to unite,” Tymoshenko said referring to plans to form a coalition including her Byut bloc, Yanukovych’s Regions party, the Volodymyr Lytvyn bloc and a part of the Our Ukraine political grouping.“But unfortunately, Victor Yanukovych put a period on these plans. Without warning anyone, he put a cross, killing plans to unite our political forces.”Tymoshenko also accused Yanukovych and President Victor Yushchenko of sabotaging her government’s attempts to deal with the economic crisis, saying: “The anti-crisis program of the government is being burned, on the one side by Victor Yushchenko and on the other by Yanukovcyh.”“Unfortunately, betrayal and sabotage still dominate Ukrainian politics,” she added.Tymoshenko also declared “I will run for president and will win.” She insisted that Yanukovych tried to discredit her by misleading Ukrainian voters earlier in the day when he suggested that he did not support plans for the new coalition to adopt a new constitution which would have stripped citizens of the right to elect Ukraine’s next president, shifting this authority to parliament.Tymoshenko said it was Yanukovych’s party which supported such constitutional amendments and also sought a clause in the constitution which would have only allowed candidates older than 50 years of age to run. Yanukovych is over 50 years of age. This clause would have eliminated other candidates, including Tymoshenko and former speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk.Tymoshenko said the “chaos” which has ruled in Ukrainian politics in recent years was the result of constitutional amendments which were adopted in the heat of the Orange Revolution. She reminded voters that she opposed these constitutional changes, which Yushchenko accepted back then as part of a political compromise that opened the door for him to become Ukraine's president.Tymoshenko pledged to fix the “dis-balances” in Ukraine’s constitution after the presidential elections. She also pledged to continue seeking unity in Ukrainian politics, and would continue to try forming a broad coalition that would more effectively help Ukraine battle economic recession.“To end the economic crisis, we need to end the political crisis. The crux of this political crisis is this political reform which I opposed. We needed to give Ukraine a European constitution,” Tymoshenko added.
“I believed that on this day we would unite all major political forces into a unity coalition. All agreed to unite,” Tymoshenko said referring to plans to form a coalition including her Byut bloc, Yanukovych’s Regions party, the Volodymyr Lytvyn bloc and a part of the Our Ukraine political grouping.“But unfortunately, Victor Yanukovych put a period on these plans. Without warning anyone, he put a cross, killing plans to unite our political forces.”Tymoshenko also accused Yanukovych and President Victor Yushchenko of sabotaging her government’s attempts to deal with the economic crisis, saying: “The anti-crisis program of the government is being burned, on the one side by Victor Yushchenko and on the other by Yanukovcyh.”“Unfortunately, betrayal and sabotage still dominate Ukrainian politics,” she added.Tymoshenko also declared “I will run for president and will win.” She insisted that Yanukovych tried to discredit her by misleading Ukrainian voters earlier in the day when he suggested that he did not support plans for the new coalition to adopt a new constitution which would have stripped citizens of the right to elect Ukraine’s next president, shifting this authority to parliament.Tymoshenko said it was Yanukovych’s party which supported such constitutional amendments and also sought a clause in the constitution which would have only allowed candidates older than 50 years of age to run. Yanukovych is over 50 years of age. This clause would have eliminated other candidates, including Tymoshenko and former speaker Arseniy Yatseniuk.Tymoshenko said the “chaos” which has ruled in Ukrainian politics in recent years was the result of constitutional amendments which were adopted in the heat of the Orange Revolution. She reminded voters that she opposed these constitutional changes, which Yushchenko accepted back then as part of a political compromise that opened the door for him to become Ukraine's president.Tymoshenko pledged to fix the “dis-balances” in Ukraine’s constitution after the presidential elections. She also pledged to continue seeking unity in Ukrainian politics, and would continue to try forming a broad coalition that would more effectively help Ukraine battle economic recession.“To end the economic crisis, we need to end the political crisis. The crux of this political crisis is this political reform which I opposed. We needed to give Ukraine a European constitution,” Tymoshenko added.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Viktor Yanukovych Promotes His Presidential Credentials In Ukraine
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine might shortly become a parliamentary republic if a constitutional reform plan is agreed. This is a joint plan by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the Party of Regions (PRU) which has been the largest opposition force.
The plan is opposed by President Viktor Yushchenko. According to its details, the next president would be elected in parliament, which means that the popular presidential election expected in January 2010 might not occur. The PRU would form a ruling coalition and a cabinet jointly with Tymoshenko's bloc (BYT).Coalition talks have been continuing between the PRU and the BYT for more than one year. Since Tymoshenko and Yanukovych have been portrayed as bitter opponents for almost a decade, it was feared that the electoral supporters of the two parties will not welcome the proposed alliance.For this reason, the talks were conducted secretly and the two parties' representatives often denied their existence. A law on the cabinet resulted from these talks, which curtailed Yushchenko's authority and was passed by the votes of the two parties in parliament in September 2008.Yushchenko's team left Tymoshenko's coalition in protest, forcing Tymoshenko to form a new coalition by the end of 2008, whose existence has not been recognized by either Yushchenko or the PRU.Yanukovych's reluctance to accept the election of the president within parliament was reportedly the main stumbling block. The first indication that the PRU and the BYT might soon come to a final agreement appeared towards the end of May, when the PRU withdrew its demands for Tymoshenko to resign and Yanukovych admitted in a televised interview that talks with the BYT had proceeded without interruption.On June 1, several Ukrainian newspapers quoted their sources within both camps as saying that Yanukovych and Tymoshenko at their meetings on May 30-31 agreed on a plan to change the constitution and form an alliance, as follows:1. The constitution will be changed to allow the president to be elected in parliament, and this could be Yanukovych (his election should be a formality as the PRU and BYT jointly control more than two-thirds of the parliament).2. Presidential powers will be curtailed, but he will retain control over the Siloviki.3. Tymoshenko will carry on as prime minister presiding over a cabinet consisting of representatives of the BYT, the PRU and possibly several more parties4. The local self-government system will be reformed, enabling regional governors to be elected locally.5. The party scoring the largest number of votes in a parliamentary election will control 226 seats in parliament, i.e. an overall majority.6. The next parliamentary election will be held in 2014 rather than 2012 - this should convince hesitating deputies to support constitutional reform as they will be guaranteed two more years in parliament.It is possible that the alliance will not be formalized until after the constitution has been amended. Only then will the two parties form a new cabinet. This way Yanukovych and Tymoshenko might try to prevent mass disillusionment among the electorate and any harsh reaction from Yushchenko who has been a bitter opponent of parliamentary democracy.Yushchenko has firmly rejected the new coalition plan. During a visit to the Vatican, he said that a PRU-BYT coalition would be tantamount to a constitutional coup. Yushchenko opined that the planned constitutional reform would be against democratic and European values as the country, according to Yushchenko, will be de facto divided between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko.The reaction of the former parliamentary speaker Arseny Yatsenyuk, a young liberal who is regarded by many as a potentially strong rival for both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych in a popular presidential election, has been no less harsh.He repeated Yushchenko's thesis concerning Ukraine's division between the duo, and called the plan to elect the president in parliament and postpone parliamentary elections "African democracy".Several recent opinion polls have shown that Yatsenyuk might overtake Tymoshenko as the second most popular presidential candidate after Yanukovych. If the PRU-BYT union succeeds in changing the constitution, Yatsenyuk will have no chance of becoming president.Constitutional reform requires approval by two-thirds of the deputies in the unicameral parliament. The BYT and the PRU jointly control more than that, suggesting that their alliance will not have to ask for either Yushchenko's or Yatsenyuk's approval in order to change the constitution.However, the process of amending the constitution is potentially long and complicated. It requires the approval of amendments twice by two sessions of parliament and a positive verdict from the constitutional court in the interim.This might give Yushchenko time to derail the BYT-PRU plan by either disbanding parliament or resigning and thereby automatically launching the mechanism for an early presidential election -denying his rivals sufficient opportunity to pursue constitutional reform.
The plan is opposed by President Viktor Yushchenko. According to its details, the next president would be elected in parliament, which means that the popular presidential election expected in January 2010 might not occur. The PRU would form a ruling coalition and a cabinet jointly with Tymoshenko's bloc (BYT).Coalition talks have been continuing between the PRU and the BYT for more than one year. Since Tymoshenko and Yanukovych have been portrayed as bitter opponents for almost a decade, it was feared that the electoral supporters of the two parties will not welcome the proposed alliance.For this reason, the talks were conducted secretly and the two parties' representatives often denied their existence. A law on the cabinet resulted from these talks, which curtailed Yushchenko's authority and was passed by the votes of the two parties in parliament in September 2008.Yushchenko's team left Tymoshenko's coalition in protest, forcing Tymoshenko to form a new coalition by the end of 2008, whose existence has not been recognized by either Yushchenko or the PRU.Yanukovych's reluctance to accept the election of the president within parliament was reportedly the main stumbling block. The first indication that the PRU and the BYT might soon come to a final agreement appeared towards the end of May, when the PRU withdrew its demands for Tymoshenko to resign and Yanukovych admitted in a televised interview that talks with the BYT had proceeded without interruption.On June 1, several Ukrainian newspapers quoted their sources within both camps as saying that Yanukovych and Tymoshenko at their meetings on May 30-31 agreed on a plan to change the constitution and form an alliance, as follows:1. The constitution will be changed to allow the president to be elected in parliament, and this could be Yanukovych (his election should be a formality as the PRU and BYT jointly control more than two-thirds of the parliament).2. Presidential powers will be curtailed, but he will retain control over the Siloviki.3. Tymoshenko will carry on as prime minister presiding over a cabinet consisting of representatives of the BYT, the PRU and possibly several more parties4. The local self-government system will be reformed, enabling regional governors to be elected locally.5. The party scoring the largest number of votes in a parliamentary election will control 226 seats in parliament, i.e. an overall majority.6. The next parliamentary election will be held in 2014 rather than 2012 - this should convince hesitating deputies to support constitutional reform as they will be guaranteed two more years in parliament.It is possible that the alliance will not be formalized until after the constitution has been amended. Only then will the two parties form a new cabinet. This way Yanukovych and Tymoshenko might try to prevent mass disillusionment among the electorate and any harsh reaction from Yushchenko who has been a bitter opponent of parliamentary democracy.Yushchenko has firmly rejected the new coalition plan. During a visit to the Vatican, he said that a PRU-BYT coalition would be tantamount to a constitutional coup. Yushchenko opined that the planned constitutional reform would be against democratic and European values as the country, according to Yushchenko, will be de facto divided between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko.The reaction of the former parliamentary speaker Arseny Yatsenyuk, a young liberal who is regarded by many as a potentially strong rival for both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych in a popular presidential election, has been no less harsh.He repeated Yushchenko's thesis concerning Ukraine's division between the duo, and called the plan to elect the president in parliament and postpone parliamentary elections "African democracy".Several recent opinion polls have shown that Yatsenyuk might overtake Tymoshenko as the second most popular presidential candidate after Yanukovych. If the PRU-BYT union succeeds in changing the constitution, Yatsenyuk will have no chance of becoming president.Constitutional reform requires approval by two-thirds of the deputies in the unicameral parliament. The BYT and the PRU jointly control more than that, suggesting that their alliance will not have to ask for either Yushchenko's or Yatsenyuk's approval in order to change the constitution.However, the process of amending the constitution is potentially long and complicated. It requires the approval of amendments twice by two sessions of parliament and a positive verdict from the constitutional court in the interim.This might give Yushchenko time to derail the BYT-PRU plan by either disbanding parliament or resigning and thereby automatically launching the mechanism for an early presidential election -denying his rivals sufficient opportunity to pursue constitutional reform.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Tymoshenko, Yanukovych Close To Coalition Deal
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former premier Viktor Yanukovich, longstanding rivals, are on the verge of clinching a deal to form a "broad coalition" in parliament, Ukrainian media reported on Sunday.
Talks between groups led by the two politicians have taken place intermittently for more than a year amid recurring bouts of the political upheaval that have buffeted Ukraine since the 2004 "Orange Revolution" brought pro-Western leaders to power.The authoritative Internet news service Ukrainska Pravda quoted its sources as saying the leaders, the country's two most popular politicians in the run-up to a presidential election, had reached a "preliminary agreement" on Saturday.The deal called for forming a coalition, drafting a programme of common action until 2024, including running jointly in parliamentary elections, and altering the constitution to have the president elected by parliament.Interfax Ukraina news agency said consultations were proceeding, with a deal expected within days. "Everything could be decided today or tomorrow," Interfax quoted a source as saying. "The issue is providing guarantees for the two sides."There was no comment from either Tymoshenko's bloc or Yanukovich's Regions Party. Nor was there any comment from President Viktor Yushchenko, whose standing lies in tatters more than four years after the mass "orange" rallies in his favour.PREMIEr, PRESIDENT AT ODDSTymoshenko was allied to President Viktor Yushchenko in the 2004 mass "orange" rallies against election fraud and was named premier by him twice, but the two have been constantly at odds.Yanukovich was the revolution's main loser.Initially declared the winner of the 2004 presidential poll, he lost a re-run election to Yushchenko after the result was overturned. He returned as premier for a time in 2007 after the collapse of an "orange" government.Russia backed Yanukovich in 2004 and has been irritated with Yushchenko, especially his drive for Ukraine to join NATO and his denunciations of Moscow's intervention in Georgia last year.Moscow has developed better ties with Tymoshenko after a spat over a plan for the EU to upgrade Ukraine's gas transport system.Tymoshenko and Yanukovich have a long history of hostility, at least in public. It is unclear whether they could overcome differences and produce the stability long sought by the European Union after more than four years of political sniping.The current premier is a vocal defender of disadvantaged voters and draws much of her support from nationalist western Ukraine and the centre of the country. Yanukovich's electoral heartland lies in the Russian-speaking industrial east.The two sides have voted tactically together, mainly to counter Yushchenko's interests.Yanukovich leads polls with over 20 percent, while Tymoshenko, hit by the effects of economic crisis, stands at about 15 percent. Yushchenko lags far behind in single figures.Parliament set the next presidential election but Oct. 25, but that ruling was struck down and a new date must be set.
Talks between groups led by the two politicians have taken place intermittently for more than a year amid recurring bouts of the political upheaval that have buffeted Ukraine since the 2004 "Orange Revolution" brought pro-Western leaders to power.The authoritative Internet news service Ukrainska Pravda quoted its sources as saying the leaders, the country's two most popular politicians in the run-up to a presidential election, had reached a "preliminary agreement" on Saturday.The deal called for forming a coalition, drafting a programme of common action until 2024, including running jointly in parliamentary elections, and altering the constitution to have the president elected by parliament.Interfax Ukraina news agency said consultations were proceeding, with a deal expected within days. "Everything could be decided today or tomorrow," Interfax quoted a source as saying. "The issue is providing guarantees for the two sides."There was no comment from either Tymoshenko's bloc or Yanukovich's Regions Party. Nor was there any comment from President Viktor Yushchenko, whose standing lies in tatters more than four years after the mass "orange" rallies in his favour.PREMIEr, PRESIDENT AT ODDSTymoshenko was allied to President Viktor Yushchenko in the 2004 mass "orange" rallies against election fraud and was named premier by him twice, but the two have been constantly at odds.Yanukovich was the revolution's main loser.Initially declared the winner of the 2004 presidential poll, he lost a re-run election to Yushchenko after the result was overturned. He returned as premier for a time in 2007 after the collapse of an "orange" government.Russia backed Yanukovich in 2004 and has been irritated with Yushchenko, especially his drive for Ukraine to join NATO and his denunciations of Moscow's intervention in Georgia last year.Moscow has developed better ties with Tymoshenko after a spat over a plan for the EU to upgrade Ukraine's gas transport system.Tymoshenko and Yanukovich have a long history of hostility, at least in public. It is unclear whether they could overcome differences and produce the stability long sought by the European Union after more than four years of political sniping.The current premier is a vocal defender of disadvantaged voters and draws much of her support from nationalist western Ukraine and the centre of the country. Yanukovich's electoral heartland lies in the Russian-speaking industrial east.The two sides have voted tactically together, mainly to counter Yushchenko's interests.Yanukovich leads polls with over 20 percent, while Tymoshenko, hit by the effects of economic crisis, stands at about 15 percent. Yushchenko lags far behind in single figures.Parliament set the next presidential election but Oct. 25, but that ruling was struck down and a new date must be set.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Ukraine's Pro-Presidential Party Head Says PM 'Conspiring'
KIEV, Ukraine -- The head of a Ukrainian pro-presidential party said on Thursday he suspected the premier of conspiracy to set up a rival coalition after she called on the country's president to revive the democratic alliance.The comment by Vyacheslav Kirilenko, who heads the People's Union Our Ukraine, a continuation of President Viktor Yushchenko's party, was made following Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's warning that her bloc reserved the right to hold talks with all parliamentary factions, including the opposition and communists, if the ruling coalition failed to resume its work later this week.Tymoshenko said at a press conference on Wednesday, "I want to remind the president that we're serving the people, rather than our political ambitions," adding that it was the "last proposal" to Yushchenko."Tymoshenko's statements that she is ready to form a coalition with any parliamentary faction is proof of her intention to establish a coalition with Yanukovych [the leader of the Party of Regions] and the Communists," Kirilenko was quoted as saying.He said that his pro-presidential party would not support Tymoshenko's "conspiracy" with the former premier Viktor Yanukovych."Yulia is not a member of Our Ukraine, so instead of instructing our party, she had better save the Ukrainian economy from the crisis, the scale of which Tymoshenko herself...is mostly to blame," Kirilenko said.The premier and the Ukrainian president have been locked in a bitter power struggle which culminated in the collapse of the pro-Western ruling coalition in September, when Yushchenko dissolved parliament and threatened to call snap parliamentary elections.The early elections were called off amid the global credit crunch, which has devastated Ukraine's economy forcing Kiev to turn to the IMF for an emergency $16.5 billion loan as prices for steel, the country's main export, plummeted and the national currency the hryvnia dropped to historic lows against the dollar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)