New lords, new laws.

The chapter about Holodomor has dissapeared from the official website of President of Ukraine.

High Treason – II. Some conclusions from the Cold War started by Russia-Ukraine gas dispute.

The Gas Cold War 2009 caused by the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute has not finished yet, but we can already make some important conclusions. Sitting in the cold Kiev flat (we’ve got very low pressure in central heating system), I will try to give my point of view as briefly as possible.

Conclusion 1. The indisputable winner of the Gas Cold War 2009 is Russia and Russian Gazprom.
I would not agree with some observers who say that the image of Russia as a reliable gas supplier and the Gazprom as a relevant business partner suffered a lot. Europe and Europeans may think and feel whatever they want, but it is really impossible to replace more than 160 billion of cubic meters of Russian gas with some alternative source of energy. So, Europe will stay dependent on Russian gas supply, whatever the image of Russia will be.
Actually Russian Gazprom has already received a lot of profits from the Cold War:
1. Gas prises. European consumers were predicting the Russian gas average prices for Europe to fall to around $320 per tcm (thousand cubic metres) in 2009 due to the low oil prices level. New Cold War led to rise of the oil demand in Europe as of the alternative energy resource, and this will prevent the significant fall of gas prices.
2. Alternative pipeline projects. Gazprom currently has two new gas pipelines projects: the Nord Stream pipeline, which runs under the Baltic sea from Russian Vyborg to German Greifswald, and the South Stream, which will cross the Black Sea to Bulgaria and then split in the direction of Austria and Greece. Both pipelines will definitely get bigger support of the European companies, as the alternative for “non-adequate” Ukrainian route. (Though Ukrainian route cannot be eliminated as it transports around 80% of Russian gas export to Europe).
3. Punching Ukraine. Undermining the image of Ukraine and its President Viktor Yushchenko was a “pleasant revenge” of Russia and its top-authorities for Orange Revolution, support of Georgia, and Holodomor festivities. After this crisis nobody (except of some ultra-pro-Ukrainian-idealists) in Europe would think seriously about the possibility for Ukraine to join the EU earlier than in 100 years, and nobody in NATO would seriously consider future Ukrainian full membership in the Alliance.
4. Extra money. The crises appeared to become the real opportunity to rise gas prices for Ukraine and to get extra-profits.

Conclusion 2. The Gas Cold War was artificially organized.
Of course, Ukraine could sign the gas supply agreement with Russia before the New Year and prevent the crisis. Gazprom proposed the price of $250 per tcm, which is acceptable for Ukraine and its economy (in case of proper management of the State Oli and Gas Company Naftogaz Ukraine and fair distribution of up to 18 billion cubic meters of gas the Ukraine is producing by itself every year. The price of $250 is logical: last year Ukraine was paying $179,5 per tcm, and there is an agreement that the price will raise gradually to the European level during three years. It is approximately plus $70-80-90 every year, so, Russians should charge $250 or even more, and it was predictable.

But the gas agreement with Russia was not signed, and the Ukrainian officials who refused to sign the documents were consciously provoking the gas crisis. No agreement – no supplies, even a schoolboy may predict such a situation. Some Naftogaz officials said that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko prohibited signing of this agreement. It sounds unconvincing, as at that time nobody, including the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko, made any rough statement on this point. It is also very naïve to think that the Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukraine really have communication problems and cannot reach a deal on gas supply to Ukraine. It’s unbelievable even if we take to the account the fact that the Head of Naftogaz Oleg Dubyna is flying in one plane with his Gazprom counterpart Aleksei Miller.

So, the gas crisis was surely staged by Kremlin and by some high authorities in Ukraine. Viktor Yushchenko is not among them, though he didn’t do anything (he could do a lot) to prevent the Gas Cold War. I would also add that the Head of Naftogaz Ukraine Oleg Dubyna was appointed to his position by the Yulia Tymoshenko’s quota, and that he is in very close relations with the Industrial Union of Donbass business group, which has permanent conflict of interests with “gas trade middleman” Dmytro Firtash who controls half of the “RosUkrEnergo” intermediate company.

Conclusion 3. In frames of Ukrainian domestic politics the gas crisis played not in favour of President Yushchenko.
Everyone might notice that the President of Ukraine was trying not to be involved into the gas crisis from the very start. He was mentioned a lot by all the participants of the negotiations (in positive and negative manner), he made some phone calls to his counterparts in Europe and to Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev, but he was avoiding to get inside the negotiations and discussions by himself. Why? It seems that he has a very vulnerable position, when one is talking about the gas supply question. During his Presidency, Mr. Yushchenko has been accused a lot of times in having some profits from the work of the RosUkrEnergo. In particular some people were accusing Mr. Firtash in paying some bills for Kateryna Chumachenko, the wife of the President. These accusations were never proved, but also never dishonoured, though Viktor Yushchenko could for example appeal to courts. If these accusations were true (even semi-true), Viktor Yushchenko is going to lose one of the main sources of his financial support before the Presidential election. By the way, some of the money may be re-transferred in favour of Mrs. Tymoshenko, if we just hypothetically assume that the Itera Company of Igor Makarov may come back to the big gas-supply scene as some people say.

Conclusion 4. The main loser of the Cold War is Ukraine as a country, its economy, and the State oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukraine (but not the current management of this company).
In the geopolitical sense the image of Ukraine as a country (and as a democratic country in particular) has suffered a lot. The New Cold War has demonstrated that Ukraine is totally unpredictable, since the actions of its authorities and state companies are based on the today’s interests of domestic politics, rather than on long-term programmes or interests of the country. Despite of the declarations about the dedication to the democratic ideals and the European course of current leaders of Ukraine, they showed up as a real threat to Europe, European economy and even to the health of the citizens of the European States.

The State Oil and Gas Company Naftogaz Ukraine is close to bankruptcy today. Though I am sure that with normal management this company may easily become a mail financial supplier of Ukrainian budget. (I was trying to make some calculations earlier, and maybe will publish the results here one day, of course, after careful self-proof-reading).

Conclusion 5. The intermediate gas supply company RosUkrEnergo may seem to be a loser, but is not.
The intermediate company RosUkrEnergo also may be considered as a loser in the New Cold War as it will probably be eliminated from Russia-Ukraine gas trade scheme. But I don’t think this statement is true, taking to the account billions dollars of profit RosUkrEnergo had received during the last four years, operating in the sphere of the re-export of gas from Russia to Ukraine and Europe (Hungary, Romania, Poland and Slovakia) and gas trade inside the domestic market of Ukraine. Half owned by Gazprom, RosUkrEnergo was founded as a temporary source of profits, and now it’s just a time for something new. I will not be surprised if Mr. Firtash would be among founders of a new gas trade company who will operate on European – and Ukrainian – markets in coming years.

Conclusion 6. The Europe, still suffering from lack of gas supply, may be considered as a loser also, and the object of manipulation as well.

Conclusion 7. The Cold War is an evidence of a betrayal of the interests of Ukraine by its highest authorities – President, Prime Minister, and Head of State Oil and Gas Company. Their actions and failure to act as well may be called as a high treason with all the consequences it should cause.

What’s up, Ukraine? 15-21 December 2008.

Falling currency . On Thursday, 18 December the Ukrainian hryvnia dropped to its historical low against the US dollar – 10-10.5.
Less than a half of the year ago US dollar cost around 4.8 hryvnias. The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko declared that the hryvnia’s value felt down due to “a special speculative operations planned at the currency market of Ukraine, and organized with the assistance of the National Bank (Central bank) and some other banks of Ukraine”, in particular, Nadra bank.
“The bank that was just bought for 600 million dollars, received from the National Bank financial resources of 7 billion 100 million hryvnias”, Yulia Tymoshenko said, adding that “the bribes made up from 3% to 7% of the total amount of financing”. Yulia Tymoshenko pointed out that Ukrainian businessman Dmytro Firtash (owner of the Group DF holding, which is famous also for a scandal around the financial support of the British Conservatives) and the Presidential Secretariat are standing behind the Nadra bank. “They need to tumble the hryvnia’s value to dollar”.

Getting closer. The U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko signed the U.S. – Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.
The joint U.S. – Ukrainian declaration called a “Charter on Strategic Partnership”, signed in Washington on 19 December, appeals for the expanding of the economic and security ties between two countries, and strengthening of the cooperation in energy, trade and other areas.The document does not have a legally binding status.
The declaration states that the United States intends to open a diplomatic post in the Autonomy Republic of Crimea, a region that is highly influenced by Russia (there are many ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people with Russian passports), and is hosting Russia's Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol (under a lease agreement until 2017). ”Ukraine welcomes the United States' intention to establish an American diplomatic presence (American presence post) in Simferopol, the capital of Crimea”, said the joint declaration.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has already said the Crimean diplomatic post would be a small one, dedicated to the organising of cultural events and doing political reporting. Mr. McCormack denied any intentions to provoke Russia by establishment of this post. ”This is about U.S.-Ukraine bilateral relations. If the Russian government chooses to be upset by ... my stating that we're considering opening up… a one-person or two-person American presence post, well, there's not much I can do about that,” he added. Russian officials haven’t made any statements on this point, but analysts are saying that this answer may be given in more sharp position of Moscow in gas-trade dialogue with Ukraine. Minister Ohryzko told reporters the post “probably will be done next year”.
Also Washington promised to help to strengthen the candidacy of Ukraine for NATO membership, which is another painful question for the official Russia. Nevertheless, U.S. would work within the NATO-Ukraine Commission to agree on a plan for training and equipping Ukrainian armed forces. “We plan to undertake a program of enhanced security cooperation intended to increase Ukrainian capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine's candidacy for NATO membership,” the document said.
Washington also promised to help Ukraine with “rehabilitating and modernizing the capacity of Ukraine's gas transit infrastructure”, cooling down Russian dreams to fort a consortium for the exploiting of Ukrainian gas lines.

Fitch Ratings: The credit outlook for the Ukrainian energy and utility sector during 2009 is negative.
The report issued on Thursday 18 December lists the main problems of the Ukrainian energy and utility sector: a funding crisis in the state-controlled power generation sector, downward pressure on regulated tariffs due to a severe recession, restricted access to bank lending and debt capital markets, and continued turmoil at NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine (‘B’/Rating Watch Negative). Fitch expects an economic recession in Ukraine in 2009 to drive down power demand, providing only temporary respite to falling capacity reserve margins.
Fitch expects liquidity and refinancing risk to remain high for the Ukrainian energy and utility sector through most of 2009, as foreign banks and markets remain effectively closed to Ukrainian issuers. Naftogaz will continue to confront major challenges in 2009, including a lack of transparency, potentially insufficient state subsidisation for its loss-making residential business, higher import prices, accumulating gas payables and restricted access to external financing. However, Fitch continues to view Naftogaz as an important strategic asset for the Ukrainian government (Ukraine rated at ‘B+’/Outlook Negative) and factors state support into the company’s rating.
The 2009 credit outlook, entitled "Ukrainian Energy and Utilities – 2009 Outlook”, is available on the agency's public website http://www.fitchratings.com/.

Eternal problem. Russia blocks Ukrainian famine-genocide resolution at the United Nations.
Russia blocked Ukraine-initiated UN resolution claiming Holodomor in the Soviet Union in early 1930s was famine-genocide aimed against Ukrainians, rather than a common tragedy of many nations in the country. “We succeeded to bloc the inclusion of the item into the agenda of the current UN General Assembly,” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said on Thursday, 18 December, according to the Russian media.
The Ambassador also added the United States and Great Britain backed the Ukrainian motion, which “ended in nothing.” Mr. Churkin said Russian representatives were active in explaining the history of Holodomor to foreign partners. As a result, nine EU countries did not sign the Ukrainian declaration, although “EU members usually act in a consolidated manner”.

The Window Dressing. What I didn’t like about 22 November Holodomor Memory Day.

Just for better understanding of my previous posts’ intonations, let me explain why I personally didn’t accept the Holodomor Remembrance Day on 22 November. That day I didn’t visit any of big events on the open air, in museum, opera or church. I didn’t light a candle as was suggested and didn’t put it on a window. It’s not because I don’t respect victims of the Holodomor, or don’t recognise it as a terrible crime. It is because this suddenly established Remembrance Day turned up to become a kind of huge “celebration” with strange and unnatural rituals.

There is no reason to invent artificial dates of memory and sorrow. In every religion there are special days to pray for people who left our world. The Holodomor Day of 22 November is surely an artificial thing, not supported by the Ukrainian society. I don’t know a single person who took the appeals of our officials seriously. All the events around this date – opening of huge and expensive memorials, big TV-screens in all the capitals of regions, translating films and documentaries about the Holodomor, thousands of guests and the all-country mourning with the ban on all not-sad TV programs, etc – reminds me a Soviet-time events, participation in which was obligatory for everyone.

There are a lot of questions. Why this day was scheduled on 22 November? Why not, for example, 23rd or 24th, or 25th? Why not December, or January, or February (when a critical point of hunger was reached)? And, for God’s sake, why this day is called “an Anniversary” in English copies of official documents?

Holodomor of 1932-33 is one of the worst pages of the history of Ukraine. It’s hard to imagine how people, who were ruling Bolshevik’s USSR, came to the very idea to kill peasants by leaving them without food. It’s scaring to think how that innocent victims were trying just to stay alive during almost two years, and to support their families and children. When I was a child, my father’s mother Lydia Pogorila told me how my grand-grandfather took all the family gold and went to the Western Ukraine, where he exchanged it for food. My mother’s mother Polina Orel (she left us 10 years ago) also saved memories about her mother, trying to make a flavour from some herbs and cook a kind of bread for her children. Thanks to God, nobody died in my family from both sides. But people did dye in their neighbourhoods, and it’s a fact. I keep their memories about those sad days, and I will tell these stories to my children.

I am very proud that, after such a terrible times, our grandparents – Ukrainian nation – found a power to go on, to live and love again, and to smile again. They never “celebrated” that horror times by lighting candles and cursing “the enemies”. They just tried to live their lives on the basis of the eternal human values, and were teaching their children to forgive and forget.

We, Ukrainians, have respect for Holodomor victims in our hearts. There is no need to be taught by anyone (is it President or whoever), how exactly we should remember this or that.

Meanwhile, I do know the answer to the question, why the Holodomor Remembrance Day was scheduled on 22 November. We should not forget that the same day previously was called the Liberty Day – to mark the Orange Revolution anniversary. Why the Orange holiday was almost forgotten? The answer is very simple. The inspirers of the Orange Revolution didn’t want to stay again on Maydan (the main square of Kiev) together.

Main leaders of the Orange Revolution preferred to hide behind the shadows of the Holodomor victims, than to come back to Maydan and to look into the eyes of Ukrainians who were standing there four years ago, who believed them blindly and took them to power. Now it’s time to report on the work they were supposed to do since 2004. But they’ve got just nothing to say.

What’s up, Ukraine? (15-22 November 2008)

Eternal Memory. Ukraine commemorates the 75th anniversary of Holodomor.
On 22 November Ukraine marked the anniversary of the start of a Soviet-era artificially organised famine – Holodomor – that killed millions of people in Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan in 1932-33. The terrible cruel famine had a goal to force peasants to join collective farms. As a "breadbasket" of the Soviet Union, Ukraine suffered the most. Holodomor killed from 3 to 10 million of people. "This was not death through hunger – this was murder of people through hunger," the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko said in his speech. Among the guests at the event were President of Poland Lech Kaczynski, President of Latvia Valdis Zatlers, President of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili, speakers of foreign parliaments, representatives of international organizations, foreign state officials, and diplomats.

Parliamentary holidays. The Parliament of Ukraine (Verkhovna Rada) decided to make a break until the 2nd of December.
On 20 November Ukrainian MP’s were supposed to elect new Speaker, following the dismissal of Arseniy Yatseniuk. But that didn’t happen. Instead, the plenary was closed and a new one was scheduled on 2 December.

“Topping” for crisis. The price of Russian gas for Ukraine may be more than $400 per 1,000 cubic meters.
Ukraine received an answer from the Russian authorities for non-friendly statements and media interviews. The President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev said that if Ukraine does not repays the $ 2.4 billion debt, direct gas supplies to Ukraine will be cut off. The Head of Russian gas monopoly Gasprom Alexei Miller added also that the price for natural gas for Ukraine may rise from the current $179.5 per 1,000 cubic meters to over $400.
Naftogas Ukraine (“Oil and Gas of Ukraine”) company rejected the mentioned amount of debt, and said in a statement on Friday there is actually $1.267 billion of debt, but it is owed not to Gazprom, but to an intermediary company RosUkrEnergo. “Naftogaz Ukrainy points out that in 2008, the only supplier of natural gas imported to Ukraine is RosUkrEnergo Company,” press service of Naftogas Ukraine informs.
Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko previously declared that Ukraine had reached an agreement with Russian Federation to switch to market gas prices step by step during next three years. The Head of Naftogas Ukraine Oleg Dubyna predicted that the gas price for Ukraine will not grow more than to $250-300 for 1,000 cubic meters.
The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko has immediately accused Tymoshenko in “irresponsible actions” that permitted the accumulation of the debt. “I want to warn that such practice leads to colonization of Ukraine,” he declared at the country’s Security Council meeting on 21 November. One should fight corruption in the gas sphere, and move to transparent contracts, not to transfer all the responsibility to Government”, answered Yulia Tymoshenko the same day, being with official visit in Sweden.

The ghost from Kiev. Viktor Yanukovych visited Moscow.
The Party of Regions has almost ruined a years of work of its PR officers to eliminate the party's strictly pro-Russian image on the West. On 20 November the Head of the Party Viktor Yanukovych visited Moscow to take part in the 10th Congress of the United Russia party and to meet the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Ukraine is playing with anti-Russian rhetoric

Five influential European newspapers ‘The Times’ (Great Britain), ‘Le Monde’ (France), ‘El Pais’ (Spain), ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’ (Germany), and ‘Dziennik’ (Poland), published today the interviews of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, based on their joint meeting two days ago (on 18 November). The main topics of discussion were the 75th anniversary of the Great Famine in Ukraine (Holodomor), Ukrainian bid for NATO membership and internal political and economic situation in country. Talking about these issues, President Yushchenko couldn’t manage himself not to be anti-Russian.

Among all the articles the real “must read” is the one in ‘El Pais’ named “Ucrania quiere garantías para no perder de nuevo su independencia” (“Ukraine wants the guarantees not to loose its independence”). Mr. Yushchenko told journalists that Ukraine needed to become a member of the North-Atlantic Alliance not to loose its independence. The most impressive – as for me – quotation of Viktor Yushchenko from this text concerns the letter of Dmitry Medvedev, mentioned in this blog: “The President of Russia humiliated millions of people who rest in peace, killed innocent people who had not done anything wrong to anyone”. (In the original: “El presidente de Rusia humilla a millones de personas que hoy descansan en paz, inocentes asesinados que no debían nada a nadie”).

The idea that the NATO may save Ukrainian independence from the Northern neighbour was quoted also in ‘The Times’. In article titled “Don’t turn deaf ear to Ukraine Nato bid, Viktor Yushchenko begs allies” the President “gave warning that expansion of the military alliance was vital to European security in the wake of Russia’s war with Georgia, and the only way to secure Ukraine’s independence”.

I’m just wondering why Mr. Yushchenko is so straight in his words. He may not like Dmitry Medvedev or Vladimir Putin, or all Russia as a whole phenomenon, but why he’s showing that on public?

To be pro-Ukrainian doesn’t mean to be anti-Russian. It is a mistake to demonstrate your national consciousness through international conflict. It’s twice big mistake if a half (if not more) of the population of your country speaks Russian at home. (Just for information: I speak Ukrainian). And it’s a three times big mistake, if you are provoking conflict with your neighbour who sells you gas, and whose businessmen own almost all oil refineries in your country. Ukraine is really playing with fire.

You may read full ‘El Pais’ article here, and ‘The Times’ here.

Presidential Absenteeism. Following Dmitry Medvedev, foreign Presidents keep refusing to attend Ukrainian Holodomor anniversary

The International Forum “My Nation Will Live Forever” dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the 1932 - 1933 Great Famine (Holodomor) in Ukraine will take place in Kyiv on 22 November. It will be a huge event, with thousands of estimated guests from all over the world. As was previously announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, the Presidents of seven countries, namely Macedonia, Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, confirmed their participation in the Forum. The participation of another 5 foreign delegations headed by Presidents was being discussed. The President’s press secretary Iryna Vannykova also said “the representatives of around 40 countries who were personally invited by Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, will come to Ukraine”.

But the situation has been changing. More and more of high guests are refusing to visit Kyiv this week. Some Presidents, who previously accepted the invitation, have recently decided not to go.

The first President who publicly announced that he would not be present at the anniversary, was the President of Russian Federation Dmitriy Medvedev. He even wrote to President Yushchenko a rather critical letter to explain his point of view on a subject. (Some quotations and link to the English translation of the letter you may find here). The Presidents of Azerbaijan, Macedonia and Montenegro had cancelled their visits also.

Director of the Foreign Ministry's department for cultural cooperation Mykhailo Skurativskyi informed journalists today that the Presidents of three countries – Poland, Georgia, and Latvia – will surely attend International Forum. The confirmation from the President of Lithuania is expected soon. “A total of 25 official delegations had confirmed their participation in the forum”, Mr. Skurativskyi told. “The delegations will be mostly led by parliament speakers, vice speakers, and ministers”.

What's up, Ukraine? (8-14 November 2008)

1. The Headless Parliament. Arseniy Yatseniuk is dismissed from the post of Head of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
My point of view on a situation you may read in one of my previous posts here.

2. President announces the government change. The results of 4th Baku Energy Summit.
On 13-14 November the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko visited Azerbaijan to take part in 4th Energy Summit. Unfortunately, the main news from the Summit for Ukraine can not be put in frames of energy issues.
In his interview to journalists Yushchenko said that switching of the Odesa-Brody pipeline to avers (forward) mode has been blockading because of political motives. He expressed opinion that such attitude is explained by “political promises and obligations” of the Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. “The consultations, the Prime Minister had before September in certain capitals and the decisions, the government made after that… blocked transportation of Caspian oil”, the President said.
Viktor Yushchenko also mentioned that “starting from the end of the first half of the 2009, we will be supplied with amounts of oil needed to start the avers mode. I am assured that that time we will have a new Government, which will be able to realise a healthy politics that corresponds to the national interests”.

3. NATO: yes, but not today. On 13 November 2008 the Minister of Defence of Ukraine Yuriy Yekhanurov took part in the high-level NATO-Ukraine meeting in Tallinn, capital of Estonia.
The main conclusion of the Summit: Ukraine has a lot to do before it will be ready to become member of the NATO. Ukraine was hoping to join the bloc’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the NATO Summit in December with the US support. But other influential members of NATO (like Germany and France) are thinking that to start the MAP with Russia’s neighbour is not a good idea as for today.
“Let me remind you that at the Bucharest Summit earlier this year, NATO heads of state and government welcomed Ukraine Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO and agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance,” stressed NATO secretary general de Hoop Scheffer. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also emphasiced his country’s support for Georgian and Ukrainian membership. Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves said that “the fact that Ukraine is here today with NATO ministers of defence should convince everyone that NATO understands Ukraine's importance to European security… We should consider how to move beyond the current deadlock over timelines and political symbols.”
So, everyone is thinking positively. It means that Ukraine will become member of NATO in future. May I remind that the EU leaders also promised that Turkey will become member of the European Union. The question is about time-frames. Ukrainian NATO membership bid is really very complicated by internal political crisis and – what is more important – a lack of public support. It seems to me, we do have time to change the situation for better.

4. Holodomor: Distorted History. On 17 November the President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev wrote a letter to the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko.
I’ll just give English translation of the most interesting parts of this letter. No comments:
“In response to your messages concerning the so-called Holodomor as well as the steps taken by the Ukrainian leadership on the issue, I consider it necessary to elaborate on our views of and approaches to the issues at hand. We clearly see that in recent years this topic combined with persistent attempts to receive a NATO «membership action plan», have become a central element of Ukrainian foreign policy.
In our opinion, the tragic events of the early 1930s in Ukraine are being used to achieve immediate short-term political goals.
The famine in the Soviet Union in 1932-1933 was not aimed at the destruction of any one nation. It was the result of a drought, forced collectivization and de-kulakization [campaign of political repressions of the better-off peasants and their families] and affected the entire country, not only Ukraine. Millions of people in the middle and lower Volga regions, northern Caucasus, central Russia, southern Urals, western Siberia, Kazakhstan and Belarus died.
I do not consider it possible to participate in the activities surrounding the 75th anniversary of the «Holodomor» in Ukraine”.
Full text of this letter (translated to English) you may read on the official website of the President of Russia here.

5. Yulia Tymoshenko met George Soros.
As Ukrainian media have informed, on 8 November Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko met with famous billionaire George Soros. The meeting took place in Kiev, but not in a center, but in a restaurant near Boryspil airport. Ukrainska Pravda informs that the meeting was confidential, and a role of the interpreter performed the Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine Hryhoriy Nemyria (who previously worked as a head of Soros Foundation's institution in Ukraine). One of the main reasons of a meeting is future presidential election in Ukraine, journalists think.
President Victor Yushchenko is also tapping the same door. On 14 November we held a phone conversation with the newly elected President of the USA Barack Obama (George Soros was among his financial donors). Victor Yushchenko and Barack Obama agreed to hold a bilateral meeting shortly after the inauguration ceremony of the new President of the USA.

Terry Davis: Instead of talking about early elections, Ukrainian politicians should concentrate on promises they made

This interview will be published in Ukrainian "Narodny Deputat" (ukr. Member of Parliament) magazine, in Ukrainian language.

Terry Davis: Instead of talking about early elections, Ukrainian politicians should concentrate on promises they made
By Tetyana VYSOTSKA
- Mr Secretary General, every time we meet, I ask you for your opinion about the political crisis in Ukraine: last year we were talking about the Ukrainian crisis, as well as the year before. In your opinion, what’s happening in Ukraine now, and what can we, as Ukrainians, do to change the situation for the better?
- I think that sometimes it is a mistake to exaggerate the difficulties. I myself never use the word “crisis” when I’m discussing the political situation in Ukraine. Yes, it is a very difficult political situation, it’s a very complicated political situation, and there are lots of difficulties there. But this is not a crisis in my book. A crisis is something much worse. So, I’m glad that it is not a crisis by my definition. I have seen it suggested by some people that there might be another election…
- Yes, they are talking about next March…
- Well, that is for Ukrainians to decide - whether there should be another election. It’s not my business. But I must say that I find difficult to understand what people think a new election would bring. If there is an election, we must wait for the result…
- But isn’t it too often to have an election every year?
- As I know, in many countries elections took place twice in the course of two years. But there are two reasons why I think this is something to be avoided, if possible. First of all, it distracts attention from the real problems of the country and the real difficulties of the people of Ukraine. Secondly, in every democracy people may say: we don’t want to be voting every year, we elected these people, please, get on and do the job you are elected for. It damages democracy, when people think: the politicians can’t agree, they are just squabbling, fighting among each other, arguing… That actually damages the reputation of politics and democracy. Election is an essential part of democracy, but not every week.
- Is the Council of Europe planning to give some official advice concerning the situation in Ukraine? Are you going to meet with Mr Yushchenko and Ms Tymoshenko again?
- I have visited Ukraine several times during the last two years. I know that some people – people not from Ukraine, but from other countries – think that I should not visit Ukraine too often. They say: you should also visit us. There are several reasons why I take a special interest in Ukraine. It is not only because of the people of Ukraine, for whom I have great respect and affection. I think that Ukraine – like Belarus – has been neglected in the past by people like me from Western Europe. So, I try to compensate that a little bit by giving a lot of attention to Ukraine.
Ukraine is a very big country; it has a lot to offer to the rest of Europe. Also it has a very rich history. I have a lot of sympathy for the people of Ukraine, especially because of that period of 1932-33, which you call Holodomor, when so many people died.
- Ukraine is campaigning now for world recognition of Holodomor.
- It must have been a terrible period. This is not a case of being anti-Russian, it is a historic fact that millions of people did die in Ukraine. If I can just give you another example: I came from the United Kingdom, and our neighbouring country is the Republic of Ireland. In Ireland they still have the memory of the great famine which took place 160 years ago. They still remember it, talk about it. It takes a long time for such events to fade in a memory of the people. In Ukraine this memory is also very live.
That is not to blame people, not a case of who is responsible – this is a very difficult matter to judge history. But I can understand why Ukrainians are still so concerned and so upset about this tragedy.
- That’s why Ukraine asks the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly to condemn Holodomor as genocide against the Ukrainian nation.
- It is a matter for historians to argue, whether it was genocide or not. To me the most important thing is that millions of people died. Personally I pay respect to the people of Ukraine, and I try to encourage Ukrainians of today to build a better future for Ukrainians of tomorrow.
- To do that and to stop – not crisis, but problems – in Ukraine all the main political forces are thinking about a Constitutional reform. But the changes proposed differ from each other completely: from a strong presidential model to a pure parliamentary system. In your opinion, is it the right time for Ukraine to change its Constitution? Which way should we move?
- Of course, this is a matter for Ukraine to decide which system you should adopt. There are advantages and disadvantages in both systems. What I would say, as a friend of Ukraine, is that it would be in the interest of the people of Ukraine for the politicians to settle this issue as quickly as possible.
- Do you think it is possible to find a quick consensus in this situation?
- I think the situation has to be settled. If I were an Ukrainian, I would be more concerned about the school for my children or grandchildren, I’d be more concerned about being able to buy clothes and food for my family, and I’d be more concerned about the house or apartment in which we live. I’d be concerned about the quality of the air we breathe and of the water we drink. These are really important things – it is a standard of living and a quality of life. People are not very interested in whether it is the parliamentary system or the presidential system. What they want is results.
- So, the reform in Ukraine should be done very soon?
- My strong wish is that the politicians of Ukraine should settle this issue in the interest of the people of Ukraine as quickly as possible. And then start discussing, even arguing, about the policies to be followed by the government in terms of schools, hospitals, housing, and the essential things of life. That’s what people want to hear.
- Politicians just have to start to work…
- I think it is very much in the interest of democracy for the debates in Ukraine to move away from a constitution onto the political issues. I don’t know what this policy should be – in a democracy that is for politicians and for the people of Ukraine to decide. Politicians should propose ideas about policy. It’s true that the best way to decide this is an election. But you do not have an election every year...
It’s like a sailing: you have to decide on a course you are going to follow. That does not mean you simply go ahead regardless of the fact that there is an iceberg in front of you. But you should not keep changing course, you should not keep changing a captain of a ship.
- Talking about the captain of the ship, some Ukrainian politicians advise to have an early election not only of the Parliament, but also of the President of Ukraine. Do you think it is a good idea to change everything in one day?
- Well, it’s a matter for Ukraine, not for outsiders. Of course, Ukraine is a very important member of the Council of Europe, but as a Secretary General of the Council of Europe I do not tell Ukrainians what they should do and when they should have an election.
- The next big problem for today’s Ukraine is its aspiration to become a member of NATO. This trend of Ukrainian foreign policy has already worsened our relationship with Russia. What tone of conversation should Kiev choose in dialogue with Moscow, in order not to spoil our bilateral relations, but to move towards NATO membership?
- You have so well educated and experienced diplomats that I do not think Ukraine needs any lessons in this field. But if I were Ukrainian, I would say to Russians: I ask you to think, why we want to join NATO. Russians should think themselves, why does Ukraine want to join NATO, why does Georgia want to join NATO. And I told that to Russians…
- What did they answer?
- They were surprised because they haven’t thought about that.
- What is your opinion on this issue? Should Ukraine join NATO?
- I am not going to express my opinion about whether Ukraine should join NATO for one very good reason: I know that it is a subject of intense political debates in Ukraine. I never get involved in domestic politics. That’s a matter for Ukrainians to decide.
- Moscow has warned Kiev that if Ukraine joins NATO, or Membership Action Plan (MAP), it will apply some serious sanctions. Will you and the Council of Europe get involved if Russia keeps this promise?
- It depends on what these sanctions are. For example, the price of gas is not a matter for the Council of Europe.
- And if it will be the withdrawal of the Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership Agreement with Ukraine?
- I do not know the terms of the Friendship and Cooperation Agreement. One thing I can say is you cannot force someone to be your friend.
- Lets talk about the issue you know very well – it is the election of the Ukrainian judge of the European Court of Human Rights. Why this process is so long? I know that there is some misunderstanding – or something else – between the President of Ukraine, his Secretariat and the Council of Europe. Can you explain what’s happening and what is the future of this issue?
- You are absolutely right – I agree with you – it just takes for too long to settle this issue. When I visited Kiev last time, I had discussions about it, in particular, with people in the Secretariat of the President. Based on these discussions –they were private discussions – I think there was a lot of misunderstanding. I have done my best to clarify the situation and the rules for the Ukrainian authorities. If there is goodwill on their side, this issue should be settled within the next few weeks.
- I hope so. But what if the problem will not be settled? What next?
- What I’m saying about the political difficulties – not crisis, but difficulties – in Ukraine is that they distract attention. They draw attention away from the real problems of the people of Ukraine. There is an argument from Ukrainian authorities that because there is a political tension, they focus on other issues. But the important issue of the election of the judge should be settled – the quicker, the better for the people of Ukraine.
- It seems to me that the monitoring process concerning Ukraine will not be finished in the near future…
- I will be surprised if the monitoring process is finished in the near future. I would like it to finish, but I do not think it will be finished, until Ukraine has made more progress in keeping its promises. So, I repeat: instead of talking about an early election, instead of talking about when you will have presidential elections, instead of talking about getting your judge elected, it would be a very good thing if the politicians of Ukraine concentrated on the outstanding promises which they made on behalf of Ukraine, when it joined the Council of Europe. Then I would celebrate with the people of Ukraine the end of the monitoring process.

Holodomor in Ukrainian foreign policy

This week the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko has three working visits abroad – on Monday he was in Lithuania, yesterday, on Tuesday, – in Israel, and today he departed for the United Kingdom with a two day visit. Agenda of every visit is obviously different, except one part. In every country Mr. Yuschenko has at least one little event (exhibition, lecture, conference or else) dedicated to Holodomor (death by hunger) 1932-1933.

On 12 May in Latvia Victor Yushchenko - together with his wife Kateryna Yushchenko and President Valdas Adamkus of Lithuania - took part in an opening of exhibition dedicated to Holodomor in Vilnius Genocide Victims' Museum. On 13 May in Israel he asked the President of the state Shimon Peres to support the Ukrainian initiative to appeal to the United Nations with a document concerning the Holodomor issue. On 15 May in London Ukrainian President will be present at the opening of the exhibition commemorating the victims of the 1932-1933 hunger.

Until a recent time, my personal opinion on this issue was dual. From one side, Holodomor was a real tragedy for Ukraine, and it surely have to be called as genocide against Ukrainian nation. But, from the other side, there is really too much of Holodomor in Ukrainian news and politics. The amount of official information, declarations, statements and appeals concerning the hunger which had place in Ukraine at the beginning of 1930th has reached – as for my point of view – a critical point, after which the total misconception has place.

Mr. Mario Santos David, Member of Parliament of Portugal, has helped me to put an end to the dualism in understanding of this situation. In his speech on the conference “Parliamentary cooperation between Ukraine and the EU” (to which my previous post was dedicated) he – very clearly – defined the main problem of Holodomor issue in Ukraine.

“Holodomor is a tragedy, but it is a history,” Mr. Mario Santos David said. “It can not be a priority of Ukrainian foreign policy”. The Member of Parliament of Portugal emphasized that it is necessary to show respect for victims of Holodomor, to remember about this tragedy – but “to put it as a key issue of foreign policy is definitely wrong”.
"We shouldn't look that much into the past", the MP thinks, "we should better look into the future".

Reaction of some Ukrainian MP’s (I prefer not to tell names) to this speech was not very favorable. I think because of misunderstanding or troubles with translation as the idea is very easy to understand. Ukraine – of course – should not forget about such a big tragedy as Holodomor was. And furthermore, Ukrainians have (pleno jure) a right to inform international community, the entire world about one of the largest national catastrophes in the modern history of the Ukrainian nation. But the promotion of Holodomor outside Ukraine should not be turned into a kind of fetish, into an artificial, exaggerated national interest. Ukrainian diplomats, politicians, their speechwriters and other professionals have a lot of other things to do on the way of the country towards the integration into the European democratic family.