Ukraine's Choice: East Or West?

KIEV, Ukraine -- "Ukraine at the Rubicon." "Kiev at a geopolitical crossroads." "The battle for Ukraine." The headlines have been dire and the expectations high as the clock ticks down to the European Union's Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius at the end of this month. With less than two weeks to go, the main potential achievement of that summit -- the signing of an Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU that has been more than five years in the works -- remains very much up in the air. For months, the government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych seemed to be building momentum in its European-integration drive. It passed key reform legislation and indicated openness to releasing from prison former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, whom the EU views as a victim of selective justice. But pressure from Moscow -- which wants Kiev instead to join its customs union -- has grown as the proposed signing become increasingly imminent. Yanukovych has held at least three secretive meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the last two weeks, and in their wake the Ukrainian leader's enthusiasm for Euro-integration seems to be waning. "The EU has been right to say that there is at the moment no Plan B because momentum is all-important -- and if there isn't a signature in Vilnius, that momentum will clearly be lost," notes Andrew Wilson, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. "And 2014 will be a year of preparation for the [Ukrainian] presidential election in early 2015." Former Polish President and EU envoy to Ukraine Aleksander Kwasniewski told journalists on November 14 that failure to sign on the dotted line in Vilnius could mean "the postponing of the agreement for an indefinite number of years." Battle Royale For Ukraine Analysts say Kiev's decision is crucial for both Brussels and Moscow. The EU, worn down by enlargement fatigue and the effects of the global financial crisis, needs to show that it has the attraction and will to pursue its broad, post-Berlin Wall mission of "a Europe whole and free," Wilson says. He adds that Ukraine is also essential to Putin's flagship project -- the Eurasian Union. "It is key to Putin and the key project of his term -- growing the customs union into the Eurasian Union," Wilson says. "It is also key to Putin and to Putin's friends -- the kind of private business interests that Russia wants to promote in Ukraine. Without Ukraine, Putin's Eurasian Union would become a decidedly Asian project, and Ukraine's economy -- although much smaller than Russia's -- is the only one in the former Soviet Union capable of imbuing the Eurasian Union with a semblance of balance. So Moscow will not relent in its efforts to prevent Ukraine from integrating with the European Union, even if Kiev proceeds with the Association Agreement, says former Russian Deputy Prime Minister and opposition politician Boris Nemtsov. "Signing a partnership agreement with Europe is a difficult decision that will be very painful for the Ukrainian economy during the first years. But sooner or later they will have to pass through these difficulties, and I think it is better to do it sooner rather than later," Nemtsov says. "It is obvious that Putin will impose sanctions against Ukrainian goods. There will be trade wars, that is obvious. It is impossible to tell what will happen with natural gas," he adds. "No one says it will be easy. But overcoming these difficulties is unavoidable." Putin Puts On The Pressure Political scientist Andreas Umland of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy wrote recently that, "Should Moscow use its considerable leverage to the full, the Ukrainian economy would be unable to withstand, and could go into a free-fall." And Yanukovych is skeptical that European institutions have the will to prop things up. The stealthy Putin-Yanukovych meetings recall a closed-door session the Kremlin leader had with Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian on September 3, after which Sarkisian surprisingly announced that his country would join the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, despite being on the verge of initialing a long-negotiated Association Agreement in Vilnius. Tellingly, Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said on November 13 that "the normalization of relations with Russia is question No. 1 of our national policy." He noted that a decrease in exports to Russia by more than one-quarter as a result of a Moscow-imposed customs slowdown had hit the country's economy hard. Moreover, Ukraine's parliament has failed repeatedly -- most recently on November 13 -- to pass the legislation needed to release Tymoshenko, and Yanukovych has been unwilling to free his longtime political rival by executive fiat. Pro-Russian forces in Ukraine are also mobilizing to sway public opinion. Former lawmaker Viktor Medvedchuk -- who has close personal ties to Putin -- has formed an organization called Ukrainian Choice that is posting billboards in Ukraine claiming that association with the EU will mean the legalization of same-sex marriage. This is a salient issue in Ukraine. The same October poll found that 48 percent of Ukrainians oppose increased tolerance toward homosexuals and other sexual minorities. European Push But Moscow isn't the only formidable force turning up the pressure on Yanukovych. Many of Ukraine's powerful oligarchs fear being devoured by Kremlin-friendly business interests and are therefore pushing hard for Kiev to move toward Europe. "The Ukrainians -- if you take the situation to its logical conclusion -- could end up as hired managers of those enterprises that are competitive with Russian ones. This future, of course, does not satisfy the absolute majority of the Ukrainian elite that currently owns these enterprises. There aren't that many of them, but they are the drivers of the Ukrainian economy," explains Kirill Koktysh, a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). "So, for this reason, naturally, they are seeking protection from the European Union from such a swallowing-up. It isn't a drive to make things better but essentially just to protect themselves from Russia." The wrangling is being played out against the background of Ukraine's 2015 presidential election, which promises to be highly divisive. Vitali Klitschko, leader of the opposition Udar party, told RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service that he was already gearing up for the vote. "There is a Plan B. Our next fight is the fight for the office of the president," he said. "And the president should implement the European rules of life." Klitschko is urging Ukrainians to attend a November 24 rally in Kiev that will be a multiparty show of support for Ukraine's pro-European course. "The flags could be Ukrainian; these flags could be European, because Ukraine is Europe," he said. "This is not a party meeting, not an action of a party or a certain political force. It is the wish of all Ukrainians, regardless of their political views, to live in a European country." Public support for a pro-EU course is currently strong. According to a poll conducted in October, 45 percent of Ukrainians support the Association Agreement, while only 14 percent want to join the Russia-led customs union. Nearly half of the supporters of Yanukovych's ruling Party of Regions support the EU agreement, while opposition voters support it in even greater numbers. And in addition to the celebrity that being the reigning world heavyweight boxing champion brings, a presidential bid by Klitschko -- or another pro-European candidate -- could also count on some influential financial backers. Ukraine's leading oligarchs -- those who are spooked by the prospect of being muscled aside by Russian rivals -- seem poised to line up behind a pro-European candidate, if Yanukovych balks at signing the agreement. "The entire oligarchy understands they have to play by rules. The time is coming when rules are needed because without rules, without institutional stability, without institutional transparency, the company loses its value," says Vadym Karasev, the director of the Global Strategies Institute in Kiev. "The value of the country will fall. As much as the oligarchy has invested in Ukraine, in its development -- buying soccer teams, creating media groups -- all that could collapse into dust."

Epic Drama In Ukraine: Do Villains Turn Into Heroes?

KIEV, Ukraine -- Over the past months Ukraine has been popping up in the news more frequently than ever. The Eastern European country, torn for years between Russia and Europe, has finally come close to signing the EU Association Agreement — a trade and political cooperation treaty with the European Union. However, Ukraine’s struggle to meet the EU requirements and resist pressure from a Russia that wants to retain the country in its orbit, has turned into a Hollywood movie ripe with villains, heroes, conflict and desire. It’s an interesting saga, even to those bored by international politics. The signing of the historic pact is scheduled for November 28th during the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The agreement represents the hard work of European and Ukrainian officials; and intrigue, false promises and Ukrainian political maneuvering have all played a part up to this point. It may all have been for nothing, as nobody can say with any certainty whether the parties involved will sign the dotted line when the moment of truth comes. But let’s start from the beginning. Events of the past few years have played out like a Hollywood screenplay penned in a furious collaboration between Tom Clancy and Aaron Sorkin. The set up: Ukraine, a post-Soviet country of 46 million, has always been a subject of interest for both Europe and Russia. It is fortunately positioned in Europe, has high economic potential, a well-educated population, rich agricultural lands and access to the Black Sea. The main character: the country’s reportedly corrupt and authoritative president, Victor Yanukovych (who, in his younger years served two sentences in prison for robbery and assault), is motivated by greed and power and the desire for more. Not once during his presidency has he demonstrated a ‘country-first’ attitude. Act I. Since becoming president in 2010, Yanukovych centralized power and money around his family and a few close allies, privatized a large federal mansion by the river outside of Ukraine’s capital Kiev, and grabbed a piece of a national park near the Black Sea to use as his summer residence. His son, a former dentist, is now head of an opaque corporation with a fortune that exceeds half billion dollars. Two years ago, a Ukrainian court, with the president’s blessing, imprisoned his main political opponent, ex-prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the blond-braided heroine of the Orange Revolution in 2004. She is also, allegedly, corrupt and greedy, but quickly adopts democratic slogans when it suits her. Tymoshenko was accused of signing “bad” gas contracts with Russia. Her arrest drew outrage from the West, who perceived her imprisonment to be political persecution. Refocusing on the international stage, Yanukovych declares that Ukraine will move towards European Integration, and sign the EU Association Agreement, which makes Russian president Vladimir Putin furious. Putin had seen Ukraine as part of a Russia-led economic bloc with Belarus and Kazakhstan called the Customs Union. The European Union made it clear that Ukraine can’t join both teams, and Putin’s vision of creating a neo-Russian Empire started to falter. Act II. European politicians pressure Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko as a sign he’s ending political persecution in Ukraine and committing to democratic values. Yanukovych promises to handle the situation. Meanwhile, Russia begins a brief but aggressive economic war with Ukraine, attacking the smaller country’s businesses, saying that Ukraine’s economy would collapse without Russia’s trade support and that EU benefits wouldn’t be enough to stabilize the nation. Putin’s ambassadors bombard Ukraine with the suggestion that Ukraine is nothing without Russia. Nothing. What will Yanukovych do? Will he give in to Putin? Will he release Tymoshenko and continue toward the open arms of Europe? Now the story reaches perhaps its most important crossroad: one man has the chance to recast his legacy, to change from an unpopular, semi-criminal president to a savior that makes the historic decision to light the path to a long-term, positive future for his country. Can a villain become a hero? It happened in the Star Wars Saga. Act III. The deadline for Tymoshenko’s release, set by the EU, rapidly approaches. Yanukovych carefully calculates his strategy, maneuvering without setting Tymoshenko free. After all, he’s up for re-election in 2015, and Tymoshenko, once out of prison, might steal his job. Yanukovych may have his own plans and motifs (greed, power, reelection), but the majority of his “electorate” wants him to sign the treaty with the EU. According to a recent GFK poll, 45% of Ukrainians support the EU pact, while only 14% favor joining Putin’s CU. Ruining the relationship with Russia is not anyone’s goal, but people in Ukraine are craving life in a society that values human rights, democratic freedom and fair business opportunities. Russia can’t offer any of that. Europe has said there is no way the treaty could be signed without resolving “the Tymoshenko issue.” The imprisoned ex-prime minister has long been complaining of back problems and Germany offered her treatment in one of its clinics. European officials came to a possible solution that could solve the issue and avoid hurting Yanukovych’s pride — bring her to Germany to get her out of her Ukrainian cell. Tymoshenko – flailing in prison, disconnected from the outside world – is ready to agree to anything. But our main character – our potential hero – seems to be choosing the villain’s path. Tymoshenko’s treatment abroad is impossible without Yanukovych’s signature. And while Yanukovyh says that he intends to let her go, his parliament repeatedly fails to agree on the text of the bill, putting the EU deal in jeopardy. It’s understood that in today’s Ukraine the parliament doesn’t make truly independent decisions. Procrastination and quibbling over the bill smells like Yanukovych playing games. The most popular view, it seems, is that he’s been using the EU pact as leverage in his negotiations with Putin. On November 9th, Ukraine’s president met up with Vladimir Putin in Moscow. That scene is cut out of the movie and we don’t know what agreement they made. Is Russia giving Ukraine more loans? Is it forgiving Ukraine’s enormous debt? Is Putin promising to finance Yanukovych’s re-election campaign? All we know is the signing date with the EU is two weeks away and no one can tell the president’s intentions for sure. The final push and the climax will take place in Parliament next week. The EU extended the deadline for the final decision to November 19th, with the summit scheduled in Vilnius on November 28th – 29th. Taking into an account the events of the past months, and the lack of transparency in Yanukovych’s plan, the gathering in Vilnius may already be doomed. A scene that took place behind closed doors is where our main character made his decision and chose what’s best for himself, determining the geopolitical future of the region and the futures of those he is sworn to represent. Villains almost never turn into heroes in real life. After all, Ukraine’s president’s main goal is to get reelected in 2015, and he’ll do whatever it takes. But the movie is not over yet and an unexpected twist is still possible.

The magic of Russian Olympic torches

Only 100 days are left before the Olympics in Sochi. Yet, many Russians keep on betting on how many more times Olympic torches, made by Krasmash, will go out during the relay. The fading symbol of the Winter Games has become the main character of numerous Russian blogs from the first entry on October 6. Pravda.Ru decided to find out whom to blame for the stories that the Olympic torch had to go through during its relay across Russia and whether the manufacturer will incur any punishment. The torches for the Olympic torch relay, 12,800 rubles each ($400), were manufactured at the Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant (Krasmash). The Olympic flame, which has been in space and on the North Pole, has extinguished itself in the hands of torchbearers more than just once or twice. For the first time, it happened on October 6 in Moscow in the hands of the 17-time world champion in diving Shavarsh Karapetyan. When it happened for the first time, the incident was explained with a mistake, made by an officer of the organizing committee, who allegedly opened the valve torch not fully. Subsequent similar incidents that occurred to the Olympic flame during the Moscow stage of the relay indicated that the cause for all that was to be found in the design of the torch. However, Krasmash representatives refused to answer Pravda.Ru questions about those, who can be called guilty of multiple states of emergency that occurred to the symbol of the Sochi Olympics. "According to the agreement signed before the start of the production of torches, all comments regarding the production, further use, and the use in the relay can be given only from the Organizing Committee of the Sochi 2014," representative of the PR department, Oksana Boldyreva said. There are many questions to Krasmash indeed. The first one of them is why and on what criteria the company was selected by the Organizing Committee of Sochi for the manufacture of goods of national importance. We would also like to know if it is true that there were students invited to manufacture the torches for the promised fee of 1,000 rubles. "Unfortunately, there are no answers to a half of your questions, because we do not have the conclusions of whom is to blame and what to do. We only make records of each case, and we want to understand why this is happening. The causes have not been established yet," Roman Osin, a representative of the service for communications of the Olympic relay said. Noteworthy, there was enough time for making the torches ahead of the Sochi Olympics. Krasmash received the order 18 months ago. The unique design of the Olympic symbol was created by Vladimir Pirozhkov, who said that prior to the start of the torch relay, the torch that he designed was functioning perfectly and corresponded to all media slogans about stable combustion in all weathers and climate conditions. Krasmash produced 16,000 torches in total. It remains unknown if all of them were tested. At the same time, representatives of the Olympic organizing committee assured Pravda.Ru that Krasmash justified hopes of the state. Krasmash is a legendary Russian company. The company makes space equipment - boosters to launch communication satellites into orbit. The Supervisory Board of the Organizing Committee formulated requirements on 23 March 2012 for a potential manufacturer of the torch. Among others, it was decided that it should be a Russian company possessing necessary production facilities and experience in the production of high-tech combustion systems. The Organizing Committee reviewed several proposals, and the choice was made ​​in favor of Krasnoyarsk Machine-Building Plant. The contract value was not disclosed," the press service of the Olympic torch relay of Sochi-2014. As for the incident with extinguished torches, which many Russians call shameful, officials with the Organizing Committee reminded everyone that such Olympic failures have occurred in the past too. "According to statistics, during Olympic torch relays of the past, torches would go out many times in other countries. It happened in Nagano, in Paris, in Montreal, in Athens, and even on the eve of the Olympic torch relay in London. Organizers of the previous torch relays calculated that the percentage of failed torches was equal to five. At the Sochi 2014 relay, this figure is currently less than three percent. Smaller incidents with torches only mean that anything can happen to anyone," officials with the Organizing Committee of Sochi Games said. Special headquarters have been established to investigate the causes behind each case of flame extinction. The results of the investigation will be exposed to the general public as soon as they are ready. Many compare the upcoming Games in Sochi with the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, of course, in favor of the latter. However, Soviet and Russian basketball player, Olympic champion Sergei Tarakanov, believes that the problem today is not in the way it is organized. It is about how much attention is paid to the current mishaps. "Even if there were technical failures in 1980, nothing was reported about them. Today, journalists often exaggerate the situation, even where it does not really need to be inflated and where it is desirable not to say anything at all," the athlete told Pravda.Ru. "Of course, if the torch goes out, one should ask those who made it, those responsible for such things of national importance. Today, it seems to me that the problem of responsibility is one of the most important ones in the whole country, because nobody is responsible for anything."

Many Russians still share warm memories of Communist organizations

On October 29, 1918 the Russian Communist Youth League was established. Eight years later, it was transformed into the All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, also called Komsomol. The organization became history with the collapse of the Soviet Union, but people still remember it two decades later. Many successful people in Russia, by and large, came out of the Komsomol organization, including oligarchs, politicians and people of creative professions. What remains of the Komsomol today? More than just memories that for the most part are good, despite the ideological component. Organizational experience is the Komsomol legacy. Earlier, even at the final stages of perestroika that destroyed the past, it was said that unions were the school of management, while the Komsomol was the school of patriotic education. There is no clear cut way to describe the Komsomol. On the one hand, it was the school of officials and oligarchs, but on other hand it was a hearth and home for people who love their homeland. When came the perestroika followed by "market reforms," the Komsomol gathered, grouped, and acknowledged its historic role as completed. In one instance the achievements of previous generations of the Komsomol members who worked for the good of the entire country, for the benefit of future generations and believed that they would live under communism, were privatized. The Komsomol went through the destruction with dignity. Yet, it has not survived the perestroika diluted by dull stagnation. Yesterday's fiery leaders were the first ones to rush to organize "Komsomol" cafes, banks, cooperatives, and video salons funded by Komsomol capital. It was not the Komsomol that has left; it was we who have leaped away from it when the changes came. Over these leaps we forgot all the good aspects of the Komsomol. And when, by the laws of physics, after each leap we landed painfully on the bumps of the "new Russia," and began to understand the laws of morality. The spiritual "safety cushion" that the Komsomol once provided has disappeared. The majority of government representatives and authorities are former members of the Komsomol. You are not likely to find anyone among oligarchs who at the time was not in the possession of a Komsomol membership card. The longer the current "big names" worked in the Komsomol, the more successful career they built. However, this generation is already followed by the next one that only heard about the All-Union Lenin Communist Youth League (and some of its representatives do not even know about it). The organization started in 1917 with the establishment of the union of socialist workers, peasants and students. But they were divided, and on October 29, 1918, the Russian Communist Youth League (Komsomol) was established. In 1924, the Komsomol was named after Lenin, and in March of 1926 it was renamed the All-Union Leninist Young Communist organization. According to statistics, in 1977 the League included over 36 million citizens of the Soviet Union at the age of 14-28. It was the largest mass youth organization in the world, and this record still holds. This is only dry historical information, chronological and factual characteristics of the once mighty organization. To give an emotional, business, and personal assessment of the Komsomol for its birthday, Pravda.Ru asked some famous Russians to speak about it. The opinions varied greatly. A People's Artist of Russia Rimma Markova: "After the collapse of the Soviet Union young people, the future of the country, were not really engaged. There were very few drug addicts in the Soviet Union. This is because everyone was busy starting from kindergarten. Kids were little Octobrists, then Komsomol, and so on. It's horrible, but all of this was destroyed. Now we have so many drug addicts, so many abandoned children. People do not live well. As soon as Mom and Dad start working, kids run away from their families and have nowhere to go." Vice -President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Sergei Aldoshin: "It is difficult to provide an unambiguous answer to this question. There were good moments and there were purely formal ones, as it often happens in our lives. Yet, positive aspects have prevailed. This organization facilitated the development of patriotism, gave impetus to a normal, healthy career growth, that is, it helped young people to find a foothold in life. Although many of the activities were just a formality, sometimes in our lives we cannot say whether something is good or bad. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. My memories of the Komsomol organization are those of romantic youth, my school and university years. I actually did not remember that October 29 is the birthday of the Komsomol organization. Thank you for reminding me!" A People's Artist of the USSR Elina Bystritskaya: "It is my nature that I cannot agree with anything or anyone. I have my own opinion. I joined the Komsomol in the army, during the war. I do not understand how one could think something bad of it, at the time no one thought of it. There were good songs about the Komsomol. My mom was a member at some point. I think that organizations are a must in certain age, in order for people to know why they work and what they want. I think the Komsomol provided good knowledge in that sense, and helped to start life. Otherwise, we would not have built so many things." A candidate of historical sciences, professor of the history of modern times Russian State Humanitarian University IAI Lyubov Mozhayeva: "This is a global issue. The Komsomol was originally created as an amateur organization. It was created from the bottom, but with the support from the top, first of all, to make this organization a combat reserve and the assistant of the Bolshevik Party. It seems to me that the mobilizing role of the Komsomol has been associated not only with the party; it was associated with all the values of our life, the Soviet life. There were a lot of good things in it. Now we have a problem with value orientations. What are the goals now, on what basis should we be building youth organizations? We had perestroika; we had the early post- perestroika times when there was an attempt to somehow build a youth policy. Now we cannot build such a strong bottom-up youth organization. We can argue whether it was good or bad, but as we can see, neither youth nor the society can live without ideology. Otherwise, there are fluctuations, up to radical use of energy, different ideologies or other ideas. But at the same time, I want to say that the Komsomol as an organization had travelled the entire tragic path through the entire Soviet period with the country. It is a system, as any organization works as a system. I have a positive view of the Komsomol. You can often hear the word "formalism" used in relation to the Komsomol. I do not have such an experience. When I was to join the Komsomol, I was after a surgery, on crutches. My entire class went to the Komsomol committee, and the committee sent Commissioners of the District Committee to my house. This was in 1965, and I was accepted without any formalities. But the minuses of the Komsomol were the minuses of the entire system of that time." President of JSC "New Commonwealth" Konstantin Babkin: "I was a member of the Komsomol in the late 1980s, on the decline of the Soviet regime. Indeed, there was a certain feeling of bureaucratization and alienation from the needs of young people. There was some kind of ideological litter. But today, looking from a distance on the historic role of the Komsomol, I believe that the organization was important, necessary, and we could use something like this now. There is a lack of systematic work with youth sports organizations, a uniting youth structure. I think it is necessary. I generally have positive feelings about the Komsomol and its role in my life. Of course, young people now are not striving to be astronauts and explorers. Now young people usually dream of becoming officials and measure success with money. Although, this was also imposed on them. This primitive materialism that is dominant now is the pursuit of the usual material things and nothing else. People are already bored of it and are longing for changes. Therefore the concept of the Komsomol will now be in demand, or may soon be. Chairman of the Board of Directors of "Dymov" company Vadim Dymov: "I think that the Komsomol played a very important role at the time, and was completely adequate for that time. It was playing the role of a junior division of the CPSU, so to speak. It prepared young people, somewhere it was even brainwashing so people would have fewer doubts in the future and spend more time working for the benefit of the Soviet state and the Soviet people. In this organization there were no individuals. People were only a part of the organization. And this was a weakness in my opinion. Has it achieved its goal? Yes, it has. At the right time people could be mobilized and really inspired. In moments the country needed it (war, construction, and so on), the Komsomol fulfilled its task. Now, in my opinion, it is no longer relevant because now the country is facing other problems. I see the future without the Komsomol despite the fact that I was a member. Generally I have nothing bad to say about it. But the Young Communist League as part of this entire socialist ideology, Soviet ideology, the system, has failed. Why do we think about the past and trying to catch hold of something if we understand that it will never happen again? We must find new meaning for the future, we must look for new models, we have to inspire people for tasks the country is facing. If Russia has declared itself as a world leader in the economy, we still need young economists, young entrepreneurs, that's what we need. We need people with an open mind, people who can take personal responsibility instead of acting within organizations such as the Communist Party or the Komsomol. The world has changed."

Nuclear shield: A change of priorities

Russia's strategic rocket forces (RSF) by 2021 will be re-armed with universal defense systems of the fifth generation by 98 percent. This is obviously not a sensation, because this date was stated before. But this time it is not just about replacing the missiles, but also the modernization of the existing and construction of new bases of the Strategic Rocket Forces. It is also about equipping the SRF infrastructure with the latest communication, security systems and other modern weapons and equipment to support the operation of the missile attack group. The media quoted the Defense Ministry noting that by 2016 the ratio of new missile systems in the Strategic Missile Forces will be approximately 60 percent. This will be parallel to the development of the relevant infrastructure. Only intercontinental ballistic missile RS-20V "Voevoda" (under the Western classification - SS -18 "Satan") will remain in the arsenal of strategic missile regiments until 2022, and then only in very limited quantities. Now the industry and military conduct work to prolong its service life to 30 years. Will Russia be able to re-arm the Strategic Missile Forces over a fairly short period of time? According to the majority of military experts, it is quite likely. In any case, there are no apparent reasons for the delay of such plans. So far there are only a few of SRF regiments fully equipped with intercontinental ballistic missile systems of the fifth generation, "Topol-M" and "Yars" in Russia. The first regiment, Teykovskoe missile regiment, emerged a couple of years ago in the Ivanovo region. Two of its missile regiments are equipped with "Topol -M," and another two the "Yars." The Ministry of Defense representatives noted then that in the course of re-armament of the regiments with the new types of missile complexes, the infrastructure in the positioning areas of missile regiments was improved. It involved construction of new barracks, headquarters, training facilities and kitchens, and expansion of modern training methods In 2013, the re-armament work in Novosibirsk and Kozelskii regiments will be completed. 100 units of military and special equipment for the new missile systems were delivered to these areas. The re-armament of the first missile regiment Tagilsky was started. In addition, before the end of this year preparatory work for the full re-armament in Irkutsk and Jasnensky rocket regiments will be conducted. Virtually all recent official reports on the latest missile systems use one word that has become nearly sacred - the infrastructure. It appears that the Defense Ministry is actively changing the concept of the Strategic Rocket Forces set up in the Soviet Union. During Soviet times, the concept of a strategic missile group was based on the primacy of the weapons and secondary nature of the supporting infrastructure. There have been cases, especially in the mid-1980s, during perestroika, when the infrastructure of newly opened rocket regiments was an afterthought. That is, silos were equipped, rockets were put into operation, and readiness tests were conducted literally in the open field or in the taiga or tundra. Only then they would think about food for rocket servicing staff on duty, their lodging, resources to conduct maintenance works, and so on. In the second half of the 1980s the American media published the latest pictures of a Soviet missile silo. There was a great deal of fuss about it, the Soviet special agents were trying to find out where the photos came from, and the Americans were openly laughing. It does not matter where the American journalists have procured the rare photos. The fact is that right at the perimeter of an ultra-modern missile silo there was a regular field kitchen circa 1939, working on wood and smoking away. It could be seen from space satellites. It seems that the current leadership of the Defense Ministry is aware of the importance of the latest missiles, and chose the most logical path: first take care of the rear and only then fighting positions. As for the distant future, Russia is developing a new solid fuel intercontinental missile that sometime in the future may replace the existing missile systems of the fifth generation like "Yars" and "Topol -M." In 2012 SRF conducted a few launches of a prototype of the missile from a mobile launcher at the state Central interspecific range "Kapustin Yar" in Astrakhan region. The launches were rather successful. The designers of military equipment with understandable caution do not call this development the sixth generation of intercontinental missiles. It is clear that in ten years (a full production cycle of commissioning of serial missile units) rocket technology will also be upgraded.

The world acknowledges international role of Putin's Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin was ranked first in the ranking of the world's most influential people by the U.S. Forbes magazine. The Russian leader is ahead of U.S. President Barack Obama, who was in second place. Obama is followed by President Xi Jinping, Pope Francis, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In addition to Vladimir Putin, Russia was represented in the ranking by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev (53rd place), the head of "Rosneft" Igor Sechin (60th place) and businessman Alisher Usmanov (63rd place). Forbes ranking includes 72 political, economic, and social activists. In 2007 the American magazine Time announced the President of Russia "Person of the Year" for enhancing the stability in the country and increasing Russia's role in the world. Traditionally such ratings attract much attention, even excessive at times. For example, the rating of Foreign Policy magazine earlier this year called Vladimir Putin the most influential politician in the world and later refuted it, saying that this was a personal opinion of an analyst published in the magazine blog. Political analyst Alexander Tsipko believes that Forbes' choice is quite understandable. "These are real events and real actions of Putin who influenced the world politics. These actions may have an impact on a global scale," he told Pravda.Ru. According to the analyst, Putin's initiative has averted an invasion in Syria. "Of course, there are no guarantees that the United States has completely abandoned its plans against Syria, but at least for now it will be extremely difficult to fulfill such plans morally, internationally, and so on. I think the ranking is very objective," Alexander Tsipko said. The ratings are an interesting thing," said head of the Department of Applied Political Science of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Konstantin Simonov. "Many have questioned the methodology for such ratings, but human nature is such that these rankings by authoritative publications cause interest. Of course, any of them is a subject for debate. One can argue whether it is justified or not. " "I personally think that Putin's first place is not only his merit, but an absolute understanding of the role of Russia in the world politics," said the analyst. He thinks that Russia reminded the word about itself in a number of major stories in politics. "This is, of course, Syria," said Konstantin Simonov. "The second story is Snowden. This is also a very complex political conflict that we had to resolve, and we've done it," said the expert. "And, of course, the G20 summit in St. Petersburg," he added. "It is understandable where the rating came from. This is Putin's personal success and understanding of the role that Russia plays in the modern global politics," said Konstantin Simonov.

Doing Business 2014 Report: Ukraine Is Most Improved Economy This Year

KIEV Ukraine -- The World Bank and the IFC experts have acknowledged Ukraine's tremendous progress in simplifying conditions for doing business. Having leaped 25 positions since last year, the country is ranked 112 among 189 economies in the Doing Business 2014 report. Ukraine has implemented regulatory reforms for local entrepreneurs in eight areas out of 10 between June 2012 and June 2013. Ukraine has improved the most over the past year in making it easier to run a business, as indicated in the Doing Business 2014 report released by the World Bank and the IFC in October 2013. Other countries on the most improved list include Rwanda, the Russian Federation, the Philippines, Kosovo, Djibouti, Côte d'Ivoire, Burundi, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Guatemala. Ukraine's growth in the ease of doing business ranking started last year when the country jumped 15 positions to 137 from 152. In 2012-2013 Ukraine has advanced by another 25 positions to become the top improver. Interestingly, in the first quarter of 2013 foreign investors have invested almost USD 1.6 billion - 76 percent increase compared to the first quarter of 2012, as reported by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Ukraine received the highest ranking (13th place) for the ease of getting a loan, surpassing Brazil, and following Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. The biggest progress in the starting a business category Ukraine obtained by eliminating the requirement for registration with the State Statistics Service and by eliminating the cost for value added tax registration. The Eastern European country also simplified construction permit issuance and registration of real estate ownership rights. Despite considerable advancement, Ukraine lacks progress on such indicators as getting electricity, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders and resolving insolvency, reads the report. "We, at the World Bank Group, are encouraged by Ukraine's regulatory improvements in the past year. The country's ranking in this year's Doing Business report shows that a lot can be achieved in a short time when there is a political will for reform," said Qimiao Fan, World Bank Country Director for Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. He expressed hope that the government would continue to further implement reforms.