KAMYANETS-PODILSKIJ, Ukraine -- Looking across the gaping stone canyon at the ancient walled city of Kamyanets-Podilskiy in southwestern Ukraine, you can imagine what it must have felt like to ride up to this place at the head of an invading horde.
It would have been a sinking feeling, as deep as the gorge in front of you.
The old city is almost entirely enclosed by the canyon created by a loop of the Smotrych River. To get to the town, you would have to lead your men straight down a rock face more than 100 feet high, then across the river, which would have been flooded, thanks to some ingenious dams.
If you managed to get to the far bank, you would have to scramble up another cliff. Even without the people inside shooting at you, your horde would be pretty grumpy when you got to the top. Oh, and then you'd be facing the city walls. ("One of you knuckleheads did remember to bring the ladder, didn't you?")
The other option would be to advance across the narrow isthmus at the mouth of the loop. But that was defended by a massive stone behemoth that looked like something out of a very dark legend - all turrets, gun ports and towers.
The walls are still there today, but now this enchanting city welcomes tourists. And if you want to get inside the ancient fortress, all you need is a ticket that costs less than $2.
Nobody knows when people first used this natural citadel to hold enemies at bay, but it was certainly occupied by the 11th century. Mongols overran the city in about 1240. After that, the defenses were stiffened.
The older of the two fortresses that guard the main approach to the town began to take shape in the 14th century. Its walls are 45 feet high and almost 15 feet thick. In 1621, a second fortress of massive earthen walls was built in front of the Old Fortress.
Over the years, the fortifications have repelled more than 50 assaults and sieges. According to legend, when the Turkish Sultan Osman arrived at the city in 1621, he asked who had created such a forbidding stronghold. "It was created by Allah himself," came the answer. "Well then, let Allah storm it," the sultan responded, before withdrawing.
The fortress has rarely been taken by direct attack.In 1393, a Lithuanian prince conquered the city thanks to dissension in the ranks of the defenders. And in 1672, a Turkish army outnumbered the garrison by a ratio of 60 to 1. After the city fell, Mehmed IV supposedly trampled looted icons as he rode into town.
You can clamber over the remains of the New Fortress without a ticket. Inside the Old Fortress, you'll get an idea of what life was like for the soldiers, see the hole where debtors were flung if they couldn't pay their bills, and examine the well in one of the castle towers from which soldiers hauled up water using a device that looks like a giant hamster wheel.
It may come as something of a surprise that such a massive and well-preserved bastion stands in Ukraine. But if Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization, the lands of present-day Ukraine are probably the cradle of conquest.
Much of the land is rich and flat, perfect for farming and war. Scythian, Mongol, Tartar, Cossack, Russian, Polish, Turkish, Lithuanian, Austrian, Hungarian, Swedish, English, Greek and German armies have all come this way.
Which is why people in Ukraine have spent a lot of time building walls. The country holds more than 300 citadels and castles. They range from walled monasteries along the Dnieper River to Genoese towers on the Black Sea, built to guard trading outposts.
Kamyanets-Podilskiy is one of the most impressive. The old part of the city - in the oxbow of the river - is not much more than half a mile long and is full of old buildings and historic churches. We hired an English-speaking guide for a 2 1/2-hour walking tour for about $20.
Wandering the cobbled streets, you can see the Windy Gate (remembered as the place where a breeze had the audacity to pluck off Peter the Great's hat in 1711) and the partially reconstructed Polish Gate, which guards a ford in the river.
There's the old city hall, which now houses three small museums, and the ruins of a 15th-century Armenian church. The facade of the Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul cradles a 17th-century minaret built when the Turks ruled the city.
When the Poles got the town back by treaty in 1699, they decided not to knock it down, but topped it with an 11-foot golden statue of the Virgin Mary.
Signs in Ukrainian and English point the way to the main attractions.
Several hotels have opened in the old city and several more are in the new city within easy walking distance. We stayed in one across the river, a 10-minute walk from the historic district.
The old city suffered heavy damage during World War II. Many of the drab postwar buildings have recently been replaced with modern buildings that look as if they could have been built centuries ago.
Locals, such as Ukrainian castle expert Iryna Pustynnikova, find this quite disappointing, because drawings of what the old city looked like could have guided authentic restorations.
Local authorities opted for plans more likely to attract investors. I didn't find the new stuff offensively Disneyish, but more discerning people might.
For centuries, the city had a remarkably diverse population - Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Armenians. But with Soviet rule came many deportations. And the Nazi occupation during WWII was followed by terrible massacres. More than 23,000 Jews were killed near the city in three days in August 1941.
That incident is not prominently mentioned in tours of the city, but it is the one that came back to me as I wandered the ancient fortifications.
Today, we see such ramparts as quaint architectural marvels, almost like something from a fairy tale. But people built them out of fear - because conquerors exact a terrible price.
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Tymoshenko Gets Approval To Visit Her Mother
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, whose travel has been effectively restricted by authorities over the past two months, on Tuesday won permission from prosecutors to visit her mother in Dnipropetrovsk next week.
The development is a small victory for Tymoshenko, whose requests to travel to Brussels over the past two months were declined at least twice.
The permission to visit Dnipropetrovsk on March 8, Women’s Day, comes two weeks after President Viktor Yanukovych admitted that European leaders had spoken to him directly about easing Tymoshenko’s travel restrictions.
Now, it will be harder for prosecutors to decline Tymoshenko’s next international trip, and she has planned to request a permission to visit Brussels March 23–24 for a meeting with European Union leaders.
“The prosecutor investigating the case at the Prosecutor General’s Office has today reviewed and decided to satisfy the request by Tymoshenko to make the trip to Dnipropetrovsk on March 8,” the Prosecutor General’s Office reported Tuesday.
Ukraine, as most of other former Soviet Union countries, celebrate what they used to call the International Women’s Day on March 8.
The development may signal a change in the way the authorities treat Tymoshenko, the leader of the largest opposition party in Ukraine, who had been under investigation since the middle of December 2010.
Tymoshenko, who lost presidential election to Yanukovych in February 2010, is charged with abusing power while the prime minister in 2009.
In particular, the authorities accuse her of diverting some environmental funds towards payment of pensions in 2009, while other charges allege her government had ordered the purchase of ill-equipped ambulances.
Tymoshenko, who is obliged by prosecutors to stay in Kiev until the investigation is finished, has asked them two times a permission to visit Brussels in February for a meeting with European leaders.
Both times the permission has been denied on different reasons: first – because the investigation has been written in English and the prosecutors demanded a Ukrainian translation, and second – the prosecutors said that Tymoshenko may leave Ukraine for good.
But responding to mounting international criticism, Yanukovych on Feb. 16 admitted that the “restriction is not acceptable” and the trip “must take place.”
The comment showed that the European politicians had communicated directly with Yanukovych to put pressure on him for letting Tymoshenko leave Ukraine for the meetings.
Yanukovych said he was “irritated” by the restrictions that he says have been imposed by the prosecutors.
This underscored a new tactic as the Ukrainian authorities had so far failed to react to general political statements criticizing the deteriorating political freedoms in Ukraine.
Tymoshenko was against invited to join a summit of the European People’s Party in Brussels on March 23-24, during which she will be able to meet a number of European Union leaders.
Tymoshenko later reacted sarcastically to the Yanukovych comments, but said that this time the prosecutors may finally let her go.
The pressure on Tymoshenko intensified late last year after she had repeatedly traveled to Brussels to criticize Yanukovych on international arena.
After one such trip last year, an anonymous caller phoned Tymoshenko and told her that she will “cough up blood” unless she stops criticizing Yanukovych internationally.
A criminal investigation was opened shortly afterwards, and her travel restrictions had been imposed.
The development is a small victory for Tymoshenko, whose requests to travel to Brussels over the past two months were declined at least twice.
The permission to visit Dnipropetrovsk on March 8, Women’s Day, comes two weeks after President Viktor Yanukovych admitted that European leaders had spoken to him directly about easing Tymoshenko’s travel restrictions.
Now, it will be harder for prosecutors to decline Tymoshenko’s next international trip, and she has planned to request a permission to visit Brussels March 23–24 for a meeting with European Union leaders.
“The prosecutor investigating the case at the Prosecutor General’s Office has today reviewed and decided to satisfy the request by Tymoshenko to make the trip to Dnipropetrovsk on March 8,” the Prosecutor General’s Office reported Tuesday.
Ukraine, as most of other former Soviet Union countries, celebrate what they used to call the International Women’s Day on March 8.
The development may signal a change in the way the authorities treat Tymoshenko, the leader of the largest opposition party in Ukraine, who had been under investigation since the middle of December 2010.
Tymoshenko, who lost presidential election to Yanukovych in February 2010, is charged with abusing power while the prime minister in 2009.
In particular, the authorities accuse her of diverting some environmental funds towards payment of pensions in 2009, while other charges allege her government had ordered the purchase of ill-equipped ambulances.
Tymoshenko, who is obliged by prosecutors to stay in Kiev until the investigation is finished, has asked them two times a permission to visit Brussels in February for a meeting with European leaders.
Both times the permission has been denied on different reasons: first – because the investigation has been written in English and the prosecutors demanded a Ukrainian translation, and second – the prosecutors said that Tymoshenko may leave Ukraine for good.
But responding to mounting international criticism, Yanukovych on Feb. 16 admitted that the “restriction is not acceptable” and the trip “must take place.”
The comment showed that the European politicians had communicated directly with Yanukovych to put pressure on him for letting Tymoshenko leave Ukraine for the meetings.
Yanukovych said he was “irritated” by the restrictions that he says have been imposed by the prosecutors.
This underscored a new tactic as the Ukrainian authorities had so far failed to react to general political statements criticizing the deteriorating political freedoms in Ukraine.
Tymoshenko was against invited to join a summit of the European People’s Party in Brussels on March 23-24, during which she will be able to meet a number of European Union leaders.
Tymoshenko later reacted sarcastically to the Yanukovych comments, but said that this time the prosecutors may finally let her go.
The pressure on Tymoshenko intensified late last year after she had repeatedly traveled to Brussels to criticize Yanukovych on international arena.
After one such trip last year, an anonymous caller phoned Tymoshenko and told her that she will “cough up blood” unless she stops criticizing Yanukovych internationally.
A criminal investigation was opened shortly afterwards, and her travel restrictions had been imposed.
Biden Thanks Yanukovych For Evacuation Of U.S. Citizens From Libya
KIEV, Ukraine -- U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden has thanked Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych for Ukraine's assistance in the evacuation of U.S. citizens from Libya, the press service of the Ukrainian head of state has reported.
In a phone conversation on March 2, the sides also discussed the fulfillment of mutual commitments in the sphere of nuclear security.
"Ukraine is ready to conduct further work to remove all stocks of highly enriched uranium before a nuclear security summit in 2012," Yanukovych said.
The sides appreciated the outcome of the third session of the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Commission, which was held in Washington on February 15, 2011.
Speaking about the development of democracy in Ukraine, Yanukovych said that he highly appreciated the efforts taken by the United States to promote democracy in the world and its attention being paid to the development of democratic institutions in Ukraine.
"We remain open to the constructive dialog on the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law, as well as the implementation of relevant reforms," Yanukovych said.
The parties also discussed the improvement of criminal justice and electoral legislation in Ukraine in order to strengthen civil society.
Yanukovych and Biden also discussed preparations for a summit dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Chornobyl tragedy. Biden said that the United States would be represented at a high level at the summit.
"Ukraine, together with the international community, is currently actively preparing for the summit and a scientific conference. Our initiative was supported by most countries and international organizations," Yanukovych said.
The sides also spoke about the improvement of the business climate in Ukraine and the creation of better conditions for attracting foreign direct investment.
"Ukraine is currently introducing a number of important reforms that should thoroughly modernize the country," Yanukovych said.
In a phone conversation on March 2, the sides also discussed the fulfillment of mutual commitments in the sphere of nuclear security.
"Ukraine is ready to conduct further work to remove all stocks of highly enriched uranium before a nuclear security summit in 2012," Yanukovych said.
The sides appreciated the outcome of the third session of the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Commission, which was held in Washington on February 15, 2011.
Speaking about the development of democracy in Ukraine, Yanukovych said that he highly appreciated the efforts taken by the United States to promote democracy in the world and its attention being paid to the development of democratic institutions in Ukraine.
"We remain open to the constructive dialog on the strengthening of democracy and the rule of law, as well as the implementation of relevant reforms," Yanukovych said.
The parties also discussed the improvement of criminal justice and electoral legislation in Ukraine in order to strengthen civil society.
Yanukovych and Biden also discussed preparations for a summit dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Chornobyl tragedy. Biden said that the United States would be represented at a high level at the summit.
"Ukraine, together with the international community, is currently actively preparing for the summit and a scientific conference. Our initiative was supported by most countries and international organizations," Yanukovych said.
The sides also spoke about the improvement of the business climate in Ukraine and the creation of better conditions for attracting foreign direct investment.
"Ukraine is currently introducing a number of important reforms that should thoroughly modernize the country," Yanukovych said.
While IMF Takes Pause, Ukraine Considers Ailing Banks
KIEV, Ukraine -- The mission of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed its work in Kyiv on February 14, but more difficult talks are ahead. Ukraine still has to prove that it qualifies for the next $1.6 billion IMF loan tranche.
The government of President Viktor Yanukovych like its predecessor, whose economic populism prompted the IMF to freeze assistance in late 2009, failed to meet its commitments as many reforms remain unfinished.
The IMF approved a $15 billion loan for Ukraine last July and $3.4 billion arrived last year in two tranches. If the tranche expected in March is delayed, the schedule may be changed so fewer than four tranches would be received this year.
This may strain public finances ahead of the crucial Euro-2012 soccer championship, a costly event which Ukraine will co-host with Poland.
The IMF mission stated on February 15 that though the economy performed well last year and the economic program supported by IMF loans had been broadly on track, more discussions would be held. In particular, agreement was yet to be reached on household gas price hikes. The mission said a more gradual schedule of hikes was agreed than planned earlier.
Last year, the government promised to hike gas prices for households by 50 percent from April 2011, in addition to a 50 percent hike last August. It is not clear how the combined deficit of the government and the debt-ridden national oil and gas company Naftohaz Ukrainy would be narrowed to 3.5 percent this year as promised to the IMF without the April hike.
On February 17, the IMF released on its website documents dated December 10, 2010 containing Ukraine’s obligations under the mutually agreed reform plan. The publication of the documents had been delayed by the IMF apparently at the government’s request in order to avoid negative reactions in Ukraine as many of the reforms agreed with the IMF are likely to prove unpopular.
The agreements with the IMF were reached in the wake of the popular protests against a new tax code last fall so the precaution was apparently justified. Now that more than two months have passed, it is clear than many obligations have not been met.
The government promised a 5.5 percent state budget deficit in 2010, yet the target was exceeded. It pledged to approve pension reform by January 2011, however parliament plans to pass it only in March.
The government admitted that Naftohaz’s deficit would be reduced to 0.4 percent of GDP in 2011 rather than to zero as promised earlier. At the same time, the government pledged to hike household gas prices by 50 percent in April. However, the government made clear to the IMF mission this month that this plan was abandoned.
Ukraine’s central bank reportedly rejected the IMF’s advice that only one of the three mid-sized banks which were bailed out in 2009, Ukrhazbank, should be rescued. Instead, the government is going to revive at least two of these banks plus the large ailing bank Nadra.
In order to rescue Nadra, the central bank plans an increase in the capital of the state-owned Oshchadbank so that Oshchadbank should issue a loan to the equivalent of $440 million to Nadra while the same sum should be contributed by private investors.
Another large state-owned bank, Ukreximbank, should lend to Rodovid, which is in the worst condition among the three bailed-out banks. Later, Rodovid should be transformed into a “bad bank” for the toxic assets of Ukrgazbank, the Kyiv bank and possibly Nadra, while Kyiv would be merged with Ukrgazbank, according to the plan.
Later on, IPO’s would be conducted for several of those banks. The IMF has yet to approve the plan.
Central bank governor, Serhy Arbuzov, confirmed most of these developments in a recent interview. Arbuzov also said the IMF was recommending remedies which had been used elsewhere but could not be implemented in Ukraine.
The government has invested over $2 billion in Rodovid, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv since 2009, but an audit conducted in late 2010 showed that more should be invested. Nadra has been in limbo since late 2008 while the central bank’s plan has been to rescue it jointly with the energy and chemical tycoon Dmytro Firtash who co-owns the RosUkrEnergo (RUE) gas intermediary with Gazprom.
International and independent domestic experts have been against state participation in Nadra, arguing that either Firtash should rescue the bank on his own or Nadra should be liquidated otherwise it will continue to drain public funds.
The government has invested over $2 billion in Rodovid, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv since 2009, but an audit conducted in late 2010 showed that more must be invested.
Nadra has been in limbo since late 2008 while the central bank’s plan has been to rescue it jointly with the energy and chemical tycoon Dmytro Firtash who co-owns the RosUkrEnergo (RUE) gas intermediary with Gazprom.
International and independent domestic experts have been against state participation in Nadra, arguing that either Firtash should rescue the bank on his own or Nadra should be liquidated otherwise it will continue to drain public funds.
Firtash should have cash to rescue Nadra as RUE will receive 12 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas from Naftohaz this year as emerged from the December 10 documents released by the IMF.
Last year, courts ruled that the former Ukrainian government illegally seized 11 bcm of gas from RUE in early 2009. Naftohaz was ordered to return the gas plus damages. Naftohaz started returning the gas to RUE last December and RUE will sell it in Europe.
Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who reportedly thwarted Firtash’s intention to take over Nadra in early 2009, has opposed the new plan for Nadra. Tymoshenko predicted that the plan to help Firtash rescue Nadra with the help of Oshchadbank would spark a corruption scandal.
The government of President Viktor Yanukovych like its predecessor, whose economic populism prompted the IMF to freeze assistance in late 2009, failed to meet its commitments as many reforms remain unfinished.
The IMF approved a $15 billion loan for Ukraine last July and $3.4 billion arrived last year in two tranches. If the tranche expected in March is delayed, the schedule may be changed so fewer than four tranches would be received this year.
This may strain public finances ahead of the crucial Euro-2012 soccer championship, a costly event which Ukraine will co-host with Poland.
The IMF mission stated on February 15 that though the economy performed well last year and the economic program supported by IMF loans had been broadly on track, more discussions would be held. In particular, agreement was yet to be reached on household gas price hikes. The mission said a more gradual schedule of hikes was agreed than planned earlier.
Last year, the government promised to hike gas prices for households by 50 percent from April 2011, in addition to a 50 percent hike last August. It is not clear how the combined deficit of the government and the debt-ridden national oil and gas company Naftohaz Ukrainy would be narrowed to 3.5 percent this year as promised to the IMF without the April hike.
On February 17, the IMF released on its website documents dated December 10, 2010 containing Ukraine’s obligations under the mutually agreed reform plan. The publication of the documents had been delayed by the IMF apparently at the government’s request in order to avoid negative reactions in Ukraine as many of the reforms agreed with the IMF are likely to prove unpopular.
The agreements with the IMF were reached in the wake of the popular protests against a new tax code last fall so the precaution was apparently justified. Now that more than two months have passed, it is clear than many obligations have not been met.
The government promised a 5.5 percent state budget deficit in 2010, yet the target was exceeded. It pledged to approve pension reform by January 2011, however parliament plans to pass it only in March.
The government admitted that Naftohaz’s deficit would be reduced to 0.4 percent of GDP in 2011 rather than to zero as promised earlier. At the same time, the government pledged to hike household gas prices by 50 percent in April. However, the government made clear to the IMF mission this month that this plan was abandoned.
Ukraine’s central bank reportedly rejected the IMF’s advice that only one of the three mid-sized banks which were bailed out in 2009, Ukrhazbank, should be rescued. Instead, the government is going to revive at least two of these banks plus the large ailing bank Nadra.
In order to rescue Nadra, the central bank plans an increase in the capital of the state-owned Oshchadbank so that Oshchadbank should issue a loan to the equivalent of $440 million to Nadra while the same sum should be contributed by private investors.
Another large state-owned bank, Ukreximbank, should lend to Rodovid, which is in the worst condition among the three bailed-out banks. Later, Rodovid should be transformed into a “bad bank” for the toxic assets of Ukrgazbank, the Kyiv bank and possibly Nadra, while Kyiv would be merged with Ukrgazbank, according to the plan.
Later on, IPO’s would be conducted for several of those banks. The IMF has yet to approve the plan.
Central bank governor, Serhy Arbuzov, confirmed most of these developments in a recent interview. Arbuzov also said the IMF was recommending remedies which had been used elsewhere but could not be implemented in Ukraine.
The government has invested over $2 billion in Rodovid, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv since 2009, but an audit conducted in late 2010 showed that more should be invested. Nadra has been in limbo since late 2008 while the central bank’s plan has been to rescue it jointly with the energy and chemical tycoon Dmytro Firtash who co-owns the RosUkrEnergo (RUE) gas intermediary with Gazprom.
International and independent domestic experts have been against state participation in Nadra, arguing that either Firtash should rescue the bank on his own or Nadra should be liquidated otherwise it will continue to drain public funds.
The government has invested over $2 billion in Rodovid, Ukrgazbank and Kyiv since 2009, but an audit conducted in late 2010 showed that more must be invested.
Nadra has been in limbo since late 2008 while the central bank’s plan has been to rescue it jointly with the energy and chemical tycoon Dmytro Firtash who co-owns the RosUkrEnergo (RUE) gas intermediary with Gazprom.
International and independent domestic experts have been against state participation in Nadra, arguing that either Firtash should rescue the bank on his own or Nadra should be liquidated otherwise it will continue to drain public funds.
Firtash should have cash to rescue Nadra as RUE will receive 12 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas from Naftohaz this year as emerged from the December 10 documents released by the IMF.
Last year, courts ruled that the former Ukrainian government illegally seized 11 bcm of gas from RUE in early 2009. Naftohaz was ordered to return the gas plus damages. Naftohaz started returning the gas to RUE last December and RUE will sell it in Europe.
Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who reportedly thwarted Firtash’s intention to take over Nadra in early 2009, has opposed the new plan for Nadra. Tymoshenko predicted that the plan to help Firtash rescue Nadra with the help of Oshchadbank would spark a corruption scandal.
Russia Considers Possible Participation Of Ukraine In Customs Union Of CES Not Excluding Creation Of Free Trade Area With European Union
MOSCOW, Russia -- Russia does not think Ukraine's possible participation in the Custom Union of the Common Economic Space excludes creation of the free trade area between Ukraine and the European Union.
First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Igor Shuvalov gave the position during a joint news briefing with Ukrainian First Vice Prime Minister/Economic Development and Trade Minister Andrii Kliuev.
"We deem these formats as being not excluding one another. Moreover, Ukraine's possible participation in the Customs Union could even accelerate at a certain stage the creation of the free trade area with the European Union," said Shuvalov.
He said the Russian delegation informed Ukraine on advantages of the Customs Union of the Common Economic Space during the negotiations.
He added that participants in the Customs Union of the CES strive to conclude an agreement on free trade area with the European Union on mutually beneficial basis.
Ukrainian First Vice Prime Minister Andrii Kliuev for his part informed about the process of negotiations on free trade area with the European Union.
"Yesterday we held consultations in Brussels with the European Commission on creation of the free trade area... On certain questions we came to quite good achievements and now we agreed to have on-line consultations by the end of April in order to shift to the next 16th round of the negotiations," he said.
Andrii Kliuev said the negotiations with the Russian delegation concerned among others the question of creation of a free trade area within the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Kliuev gave a positive assessment of the negotiations with the Russian delegation.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine decided to hold parliamentary hearings on May 11, 2011, on the situation and prospects for development of economic relations with the European Union and customs union in frames of the Common Economic Space.
Ukraine has decided to observe at the negotiations between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan on the formation of customs union in the frames of the Common Economic Space.
President Viktor Yanukovych has said that Ukraine may consider joining the customs union of the common economic space that Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are creating if the CES proves efficient.
According to Yanukovych, if Ukraine signs an agreement on joining the CES's customs union it will be necessary for the parliament to ratify it and make the relevant amendments to the constitution, and these will require the support of at least 300 parliamentary deputies.
The European Union's Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fuele has said that creation of a free trade zone between Ukraine and the European Union, to which Ukraine aspires, is incompatible with Ukrainian membership of the Common Economic Space's customs union.
First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Igor Shuvalov gave the position during a joint news briefing with Ukrainian First Vice Prime Minister/Economic Development and Trade Minister Andrii Kliuev.
"We deem these formats as being not excluding one another. Moreover, Ukraine's possible participation in the Customs Union could even accelerate at a certain stage the creation of the free trade area with the European Union," said Shuvalov.
He said the Russian delegation informed Ukraine on advantages of the Customs Union of the Common Economic Space during the negotiations.
He added that participants in the Customs Union of the CES strive to conclude an agreement on free trade area with the European Union on mutually beneficial basis.
Ukrainian First Vice Prime Minister Andrii Kliuev for his part informed about the process of negotiations on free trade area with the European Union.
"Yesterday we held consultations in Brussels with the European Commission on creation of the free trade area... On certain questions we came to quite good achievements and now we agreed to have on-line consultations by the end of April in order to shift to the next 16th round of the negotiations," he said.
Andrii Kliuev said the negotiations with the Russian delegation concerned among others the question of creation of a free trade area within the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Kliuev gave a positive assessment of the negotiations with the Russian delegation.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine decided to hold parliamentary hearings on May 11, 2011, on the situation and prospects for development of economic relations with the European Union and customs union in frames of the Common Economic Space.
Ukraine has decided to observe at the negotiations between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan on the formation of customs union in the frames of the Common Economic Space.
President Viktor Yanukovych has said that Ukraine may consider joining the customs union of the common economic space that Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan are creating if the CES proves efficient.
According to Yanukovych, if Ukraine signs an agreement on joining the CES's customs union it will be necessary for the parliament to ratify it and make the relevant amendments to the constitution, and these will require the support of at least 300 parliamentary deputies.
The European Union's Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fuele has said that creation of a free trade zone between Ukraine and the European Union, to which Ukraine aspires, is incompatible with Ukrainian membership of the Common Economic Space's customs union.
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.
Chernobyl: The Toxic Tourist Attraction
KIEV, Ukraine -- As Ukraine prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster next month, its legacy remains as divisive as ever.
Sitting in his run-down office in the Ukrainian capital Kiev, Yuri Andreyev recalls the events of 25 years ago as if they were yesterday.
As a survivor of the world's worst nuclear accident, he is also surprised that he is still around to tell the tale.
"I absorbed a dose of radiation that should have killed me," says the former Chernobyl engineer, his eyes welling up with tears. "I thought afterwards that it would only be a matter of time before my family had to fend for themselves."
Now 60 and the head of an organisation representing 450,000 people affected by the tragedy, Mr Andreyev's pessimism is understandable.
Many of his co-workers have since died from radiation-related illnesses, and he himself very nearly perished in the explosion itself.
He clocked off his shift at the plant a mere one hour and 23 minutes before a huge blast ripped through its fourth reactor, and was less than two miles away as lethal radioactive matter began to pour out of the stricken building's roof.
Hours later, though, he and three colleagues were back at the plant trying to stop its second reactor blowing up too, water pouring into the control rooms and the alarm system flashing red as they struggled to shut it down.
Thankfully, for the world and for Mr Andreyev, they succeeded.
As Ukraine prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster next month, its legacy remains as divisive as ever, however.
Opponents of nuclear power insist that Chernobyl proved once and for all that the technology is unsafe. They argue that no more nuclear power stations should be built – ever.
"Chernobyl was a warning for the future," said Valery Makarenko, the first Soviet TV reporter on the scene. "It was not just a banal disaster, it was a message that nuclear power is not safe. It is time to think, consider alternatives, and bring the industry under tight international control. Otherwise, humankind will destroy itself."
Proponents of nuclear energy, however, claim the fallout from Chernobyl was actually not as bad as first thought and pin the blame on shoddy Soviet management practices.
Safety standards are much higher now, they point out, and nuclear power is cheap and clean compared to fossil fuels.
As evidence that the effects of radiation are not as bad as critics contend, they cite how wildlife has staged a remarkable comeback in the area around Chernobyl.
Audits in the past have shown that the 18-mile exclusion area or "dead zone" around the plant is now home to 66 different species of mammals, including wild boar, wolves, deer, beavers, foxes, lynx and thousands of elk.
Moreover, with oil supplies finite and coal viewed by many as unacceptably polluting, many developing countries, including India and Iran, are pressing ahead with new nuclear facilities.
Ironically, it is Russia's atomic energy agency, the successor to the Soviet atomic energy agency that built Chernobyl, that is winning many of the contracts to build these new plants.
Conceived as the largest such plant in the world, the Soviets originally planned to build 12 such reactors at Chernobyl, a peaceful wooded spot that lies 70 miles north of the modern-day capital of Ukraine.
A model Soviet town called Pripyat, built in 1970 to house almost 50,000 plant workers and their families, lay less than two miles from the sprawling power station and completed the Kremlin's nuclear-powered master plan.
That plan ended in the small hours of April 26, 1986, when a "routine experiment" went badly wrong and Chernobyl's fourth reactor exploded, sending a plume of radiation equivalent to 400 Hiroshimas into the night sky.
Many of the 176 staff on duty that night were killed instantly; others would die later in hospital. The reactor core burned for 10 days, and the resultant pollutants - including plutonium isotopes with a half-life of 24,360 years - drifted around the world, raining toxicity down on faraway places such as the lakes of Japan and the glens of Scotland.
The Soviets tried to hush the disaster up and waited almost three days - until the drifting radioactive fallout triggered alarms in Sweden - before publicly acknowledging that an accident had occurred.
The reactor-core eventually had to be sealed with a cement mixture, dropped from the air, and a giant steel and concrete sarcophagus erected over it to contain the radiation.
The Soviet Union's mania for secrecy and its desire to save face mean that it is still not known precisely how many people died as a result of the tragedy.
Estimates of human fatalities, both direct and indirect, vary wildly, from less than a hundred in the immediate aftermath to tens of thousands in the years that followed.
More widely, an estimated five million people were exposed to potentially hazardous levels of radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
Doctors claim that cancer rates are far higher than they were before 1986, and that tens of thousands of Ukrainians and people in neighbouring Belarus (worse affected than Ukraine because of the wind direction at the time) may have died prematurely as a result.
"I now understand that health is the main thing in life," laments Ilya Bosakovsky, 72, a former Chernobyl worker, who recalls how soldiers drafted in to help with the clean-up operation refused to do some jobs because they feared being irradiated.
"I was really healthy when I started working at the plant but by the time I had finished my health was shot to pieces. I started getting really bad headaches and my blood pressure rose. "
In the meantime Chernobyl itself and Pripyat, the Soviet model town that has now become a ghostly monument to humankind's incompetence, have become ghoulish tourist attractions open to anyone ready to spend the equivalent of about £100 ($163) for a day trip.
The Ukrainian government legalised such tours for the first time in January, and is now developing plans to attract more tourists to the area ahead of the 2012 European football championship in Ukraine.
Ukraine's emergency situations ministry claims that radiation levels in parts of the "dead zone" around Chernobyl are now returning to normal levels, paving the way for the area to be marketed as a tourism destination more widely.
"The Chernobyl zone is not as scary as the whole world thinks," said spokeswoman Yulia Yurshova. "We want to work with big tour operators and attract Western tourists, from whom there is great demand."
The tours are not for the faint-hearted.
Visitors have to sign a waiver, exempting the tour operator from all responsibility in the event that they later suffer radiation-related health problems.
Driven round at breakneck speed, and told not to touch any of the irradiated vegetation or metal structures, "tourists" are invited to briefly inspect the stricken number four reactor from a short distance as the geiger counter guides carry clicks ever higher.
"Let's leave now, it is very dangerous to be here," Vita Polyakova, a tour guide, told a group including The Sunday Telegraph last week. "There are huge holes in the sarcophagus covering the reactor," she added, in a tone that suggested she was not joking.
The most arresting "attraction" is not the ruined plant, however, but the ghost town of Pripyat nearby.
Visitors get to walk through the debris-strewn corridors of its Palace of Culture, admire its crumbling Olympic-sized swimming pool, and wander through the eerily empty classrooms of one of its biggest schools.
Hundreds of discarded gas masks litter the floor of the school canteen.
Soviet propaganda continues to hang on classroom walls, and children's dolls are scattered about, left where their young owners dropped them in a hurry a quarter of a century ago.
Mr Andreyev, who lived with his family in Pripyat, said it broke his heart to return there a few years ago.
"When I went to have a look at my old flat in the 1990s my heart almost stopped," he remembered. "When I looked at everything that was once so familiar to me I realised how much we had lost."
Alexander Sirota, who now runs an organisation trying to keep the disaster's memory alive, was a 9-year-old school boy in Pripyat at the time. Like most youngsters, he was kept unaware of the true nature of the explosion, and initially had happy memories of being evacuated.
"For us it was an exciting game," he said. "There were soldiers, military helicopters, and firefighters and plenty of time off school."
But with adulthood came knowledge of what had really happened - and the horrifying legacy.
"When people I knew started to die around me, a proper understanding of what it was all about came to me," he said.
He believes that any tours to Chernobyl should be more educational than entertainment-focused, and wants the government to recognise the town of Pripyat as a monument so that it can be preserved.
"If people do not know anything about it history could repeat itself," he warned. "It is impossible to leave Pripyat without being changed."
For Mr Andreyev, however, the real lesson to be had about Chernobyl is not about the future, but about the past. During the Soviet era, he was taught that "Soviet reactors do not explode", especially not ones like Chernobyl, which was originally named in honour of Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin.
"I was a Communist and of course an atheist back then," he said, as he downed a tumbler of cognac in one go.
"But later, I understood that God had helped us cope with Chernobyl."
Sitting in his run-down office in the Ukrainian capital Kiev, Yuri Andreyev recalls the events of 25 years ago as if they were yesterday.
As a survivor of the world's worst nuclear accident, he is also surprised that he is still around to tell the tale.
"I absorbed a dose of radiation that should have killed me," says the former Chernobyl engineer, his eyes welling up with tears. "I thought afterwards that it would only be a matter of time before my family had to fend for themselves."
Now 60 and the head of an organisation representing 450,000 people affected by the tragedy, Mr Andreyev's pessimism is understandable.
Many of his co-workers have since died from radiation-related illnesses, and he himself very nearly perished in the explosion itself.
He clocked off his shift at the plant a mere one hour and 23 minutes before a huge blast ripped through its fourth reactor, and was less than two miles away as lethal radioactive matter began to pour out of the stricken building's roof.
Hours later, though, he and three colleagues were back at the plant trying to stop its second reactor blowing up too, water pouring into the control rooms and the alarm system flashing red as they struggled to shut it down.
Thankfully, for the world and for Mr Andreyev, they succeeded.
As Ukraine prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster next month, its legacy remains as divisive as ever, however.
Opponents of nuclear power insist that Chernobyl proved once and for all that the technology is unsafe. They argue that no more nuclear power stations should be built – ever.
"Chernobyl was a warning for the future," said Valery Makarenko, the first Soviet TV reporter on the scene. "It was not just a banal disaster, it was a message that nuclear power is not safe. It is time to think, consider alternatives, and bring the industry under tight international control. Otherwise, humankind will destroy itself."
Proponents of nuclear energy, however, claim the fallout from Chernobyl was actually not as bad as first thought and pin the blame on shoddy Soviet management practices.
Safety standards are much higher now, they point out, and nuclear power is cheap and clean compared to fossil fuels.
As evidence that the effects of radiation are not as bad as critics contend, they cite how wildlife has staged a remarkable comeback in the area around Chernobyl.
Audits in the past have shown that the 18-mile exclusion area or "dead zone" around the plant is now home to 66 different species of mammals, including wild boar, wolves, deer, beavers, foxes, lynx and thousands of elk.
Moreover, with oil supplies finite and coal viewed by many as unacceptably polluting, many developing countries, including India and Iran, are pressing ahead with new nuclear facilities.
Ironically, it is Russia's atomic energy agency, the successor to the Soviet atomic energy agency that built Chernobyl, that is winning many of the contracts to build these new plants.
Conceived as the largest such plant in the world, the Soviets originally planned to build 12 such reactors at Chernobyl, a peaceful wooded spot that lies 70 miles north of the modern-day capital of Ukraine.
A model Soviet town called Pripyat, built in 1970 to house almost 50,000 plant workers and their families, lay less than two miles from the sprawling power station and completed the Kremlin's nuclear-powered master plan.
That plan ended in the small hours of April 26, 1986, when a "routine experiment" went badly wrong and Chernobyl's fourth reactor exploded, sending a plume of radiation equivalent to 400 Hiroshimas into the night sky.
Many of the 176 staff on duty that night were killed instantly; others would die later in hospital. The reactor core burned for 10 days, and the resultant pollutants - including plutonium isotopes with a half-life of 24,360 years - drifted around the world, raining toxicity down on faraway places such as the lakes of Japan and the glens of Scotland.
The Soviets tried to hush the disaster up and waited almost three days - until the drifting radioactive fallout triggered alarms in Sweden - before publicly acknowledging that an accident had occurred.
The reactor-core eventually had to be sealed with a cement mixture, dropped from the air, and a giant steel and concrete sarcophagus erected over it to contain the radiation.
The Soviet Union's mania for secrecy and its desire to save face mean that it is still not known precisely how many people died as a result of the tragedy.
Estimates of human fatalities, both direct and indirect, vary wildly, from less than a hundred in the immediate aftermath to tens of thousands in the years that followed.
More widely, an estimated five million people were exposed to potentially hazardous levels of radiation in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.
Doctors claim that cancer rates are far higher than they were before 1986, and that tens of thousands of Ukrainians and people in neighbouring Belarus (worse affected than Ukraine because of the wind direction at the time) may have died prematurely as a result.
"I now understand that health is the main thing in life," laments Ilya Bosakovsky, 72, a former Chernobyl worker, who recalls how soldiers drafted in to help with the clean-up operation refused to do some jobs because they feared being irradiated.
"I was really healthy when I started working at the plant but by the time I had finished my health was shot to pieces. I started getting really bad headaches and my blood pressure rose. "
In the meantime Chernobyl itself and Pripyat, the Soviet model town that has now become a ghostly monument to humankind's incompetence, have become ghoulish tourist attractions open to anyone ready to spend the equivalent of about £100 ($163) for a day trip.
The Ukrainian government legalised such tours for the first time in January, and is now developing plans to attract more tourists to the area ahead of the 2012 European football championship in Ukraine.
Ukraine's emergency situations ministry claims that radiation levels in parts of the "dead zone" around Chernobyl are now returning to normal levels, paving the way for the area to be marketed as a tourism destination more widely.
"The Chernobyl zone is not as scary as the whole world thinks," said spokeswoman Yulia Yurshova. "We want to work with big tour operators and attract Western tourists, from whom there is great demand."
The tours are not for the faint-hearted.
Visitors have to sign a waiver, exempting the tour operator from all responsibility in the event that they later suffer radiation-related health problems.
Driven round at breakneck speed, and told not to touch any of the irradiated vegetation or metal structures, "tourists" are invited to briefly inspect the stricken number four reactor from a short distance as the geiger counter guides carry clicks ever higher.
"Let's leave now, it is very dangerous to be here," Vita Polyakova, a tour guide, told a group including The Sunday Telegraph last week. "There are huge holes in the sarcophagus covering the reactor," she added, in a tone that suggested she was not joking.
The most arresting "attraction" is not the ruined plant, however, but the ghost town of Pripyat nearby.
Visitors get to walk through the debris-strewn corridors of its Palace of Culture, admire its crumbling Olympic-sized swimming pool, and wander through the eerily empty classrooms of one of its biggest schools.
Hundreds of discarded gas masks litter the floor of the school canteen.
Soviet propaganda continues to hang on classroom walls, and children's dolls are scattered about, left where their young owners dropped them in a hurry a quarter of a century ago.
Mr Andreyev, who lived with his family in Pripyat, said it broke his heart to return there a few years ago.
"When I went to have a look at my old flat in the 1990s my heart almost stopped," he remembered. "When I looked at everything that was once so familiar to me I realised how much we had lost."
Alexander Sirota, who now runs an organisation trying to keep the disaster's memory alive, was a 9-year-old school boy in Pripyat at the time. Like most youngsters, he was kept unaware of the true nature of the explosion, and initially had happy memories of being evacuated.
"For us it was an exciting game," he said. "There were soldiers, military helicopters, and firefighters and plenty of time off school."
But with adulthood came knowledge of what had really happened - and the horrifying legacy.
"When people I knew started to die around me, a proper understanding of what it was all about came to me," he said.
He believes that any tours to Chernobyl should be more educational than entertainment-focused, and wants the government to recognise the town of Pripyat as a monument so that it can be preserved.
"If people do not know anything about it history could repeat itself," he warned. "It is impossible to leave Pripyat without being changed."
For Mr Andreyev, however, the real lesson to be had about Chernobyl is not about the future, but about the past. During the Soviet era, he was taught that "Soviet reactors do not explode", especially not ones like Chernobyl, which was originally named in honour of Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin.
"I was a Communist and of course an atheist back then," he said, as he downed a tumbler of cognac in one go.
"But later, I understood that God had helped us cope with Chernobyl."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)