The Court-Round. Hearing of the case on election of President of Ukraine to be broadcasted live this week, and the Inauguration ceremony – next week.

Presidents Obama, Medvedev, Sarkozy, and other world leaders has already congratulated Yanukovych on winning the presidential election, but Prime Minister Tymoshenko still fights. Tomorrow (on 16 February) she is going to take the election-case to the Supreme Administrative Court. The victory was fabricated, Yulia Tymoshenko claims. The same time Viktor Yanukovych is getting ready for the inauguration: Parliament is expected to approve the date – 25 February 2010 – during its tomorrow morning sitting (16 Feb).

On Sunday, 14 February, the Central Election Commission of Ukraine officially declared Viktor Yanukovych as a winner of presidential election in Ukraine (the results adopted by the CEC are here in Ukrainian language).

One day before the CEC decision, on 13 February, Yulia Tymoshenko made an appeal to the nation, saying she would not accept the victory of Yanukovych because the result of election was fraudulent. Saturday declaration was the first public appearance of Mrs. Tymoshenko after the Election Day (except of her televised opening speech at the Cabinet sitting, when she avoided mentioning election topic at all). ‘I want to declare very clear: Yanukovych is not our President. In whatever way the situation develops, he will never be the legitimately elected President of Ukraine’, she said.

So, the ‘court-round’ of election of the President of Ukraine – 2010 is inevitable. But it is most likely that the claim of Prime Minister will not be satisfied. The difference between candidates is to big (3.48 percent) to prove the falsifications and to change the winner’s name. Though the Tymoshenko camp (at least a part of it, as some personages, including, according to rumors, the Vice Speaker of Parliament Mykola Tomenko, Vice Prime Minister Grygoriy Nemyria, and even a top-lawyer of BYT and Deputy Head of Block of Yulia Tymoshenko faction Andriy Portnov were strongly against the court appeal) expects the cancellation of the election result and declaration of a repeat, third round of election, or even the roll-back to the new first round with a new nomination of presidential candidates.

Whatever the case, the show will surely be worth watching. I used a word ‘show’ as the First Vice-Prime Minister Oleksandr Turchynov has promised today that the Supreme Administrative Court sitting will be broadcasted live on TV.

Very interesting point is the possible involvement of some OSCE observers as witnesses during the court examination. Direct speech of Yulia Tymoshenko: ‘My convincement in the idea that we have to fight is supported also by the last evidences of some OSCE observers. They expressed a wish to testify in courts on our side with video materials, with their estimations that there was a system fraud at the Ukrainian election’. Oleksandr Turchynov also has said today that they will file to the court some video materials, which prove the fraud in favor of Yanukovych.

The same time the winner’s establishment prepares to the inauguration procedure. According to the law on election of the President of Ukraine, the inauguration shall take place during 30 days from the official declaration of the winner by the CEC (in this case – by March, 14). The first question in tomorrow’s order of business of Parliament is the establishment of the inauguration date on Thurthday, 25 February. This proposal is very likely to be approved by the majority of MPs.

The Inauguration Day is closer, and the negotiations inside Parliament are more and more active. As I mentioned in my previous posts, to dismiss Prime Minister a new coalition of at least 226 MPs (leading by the 172-seats Party of Regions) should be formed. Despite of some controversial Constitutional provisions on the procedure of coalition-building (some details on the formation of current, very questionable BYT-leaded coalition may be found here) the coalition of the Party of Regions, the Block of the Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn, part of Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence faction, and maybe the Communist Party faction is likely to be formed, and Parliament will pass a no-confidence motion against the PM Tymoshenko. It is very probable that the no-confidence-vote will appear in the parliamentary agenda even next week.

By the way, the ex-presidential Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence (OU-PS) faction is demonstrating re-load tendencies. Some members of the faction has already mentioned that there are active negotiations on the formation of a new political movement (group, party) on the base of OU-PS, with the participation of members of other parliamentary factions (BYT, Party of Regions) and out-of-parliament political forces.

Who will be elected as a new Prime Minister? It may be a PM of a current ‘opposition government’, ex-Vice Prime Minister (2002-2005 and 2006) and ex-Minister of Finance (2006), Head of Viktor Yanukovych electoral headquarters Mykola Azarov. But some people say that the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko may be appointed to this position due to some shadow pre-election agreement with Yanukovych. Let’s see. The scheme with the Prime Minister who is not a member of the Party of Regions is very convincing – in that case ‘democratic’ forces in Parliament will have a strong argument to explain to electorate their decision to join the anti-crisis coalition of Viktor Yanukovych.

In the meantime the phantom of snap parliamentary poll is still present in Parliament’s building. As it would be easy to link the early parliamentary election with the regular local elections, scheduled for this year, MPs are preparing the decision to postpone the local vote, scheduled on 30 May 2010 (the campaign shall be started on 23 February). Vice-Speaker Mykola Tomenko (BYT faction) has registered a project of law proposing to shift the local election date to 27 March 2011. MP from the OU-PS faction Oksana Bilozir proposed another (earlier) date in her law project – 26 September 2010. Parliament will discuss this question tomorrow. Show to be continued.

The voice of America

Today I've read very interesting interview with Brookings Institute Visiting Fellow and former US Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer. The interview was conducted by VOA’s Ukrainian Service a few hours before President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko dissolved parliament last week.

On Ukraine’s Chances for a NATO Membership Action Plan in December
“It seems to me that the chances for Ukraine getting a Membership Action Plan in December are practically zero. And actually that’s really because of a couple of reasons. One is, for countries like Germany, obviously, there is the Russian reaction. But the other question, and this goes back to April and the Bucharest summit, is – does the government, does the prime minister support the president’s policy on the Membership Action Plan. So right now there seem to be three scenarios, the most likely of which appears to be new elections. If there are new elections in December or January and when NATO foreign ministers meet in December, they won’t know who the next prime minister is going to be, let alone whether he or she will support a Membership Action Plan. And the other two scenarios would be either an alignment between Regions and the Tymoshenko Bloc or a reconstitution of the Orange coalition between Our Ukraine and the Tymoshenko Bloc in the next couple of days, but both of those scenarios would be very unlikely. It would seem to me that the Regions-Tymoshenko alignment is not going to produce a government that supports a Membership Action Plan. And even if you put back the Orange Coalition, after the problems and the debates between them and the infighting of the last couple of months, I’m not sure European governments are going to see that as sustainable. The other factor seems to me the U.S. government will continue to want to support Ukraine for a Membership Action Plan, but the problem is that in December it’s going to be the final days of the Bush Administration. That administration is just not going to have the diplomatic clout to make a MAP happen.”

More on the President Yushchenko’s Visit to Washington, DC
“Well, I think there are a couple of things here. I mean, you know, first of all, something was different in September from in July, and that is you had the conflict between Russia and Georgia. I’m not sure that represents a threat to Ukraine, but certainly this more assertive Russian foreign policy is a challenge for Ukraine. So it seems to me that a big part of that visit, having President Yushchenko meet with President Bush in the Oval Office, was basically to reaffirm U.S. support, to try to be bolstering of Ukraine. Because there are questions, given what happened in Georgia, does this now mean that Russia is going to behave in a different way towards Ukraine?”

On Whether President Yushchenko was looking for US Support in Ukraine’s Internal Political Squabbles
“I’m not sure. That’s a question you really have to ask President Yushchenko. But I think he probably understands, I mean, American policy’s been pretty consistent on this question. And even Secretary of Defense Gates made the point, I think, even today, is that, you know, deciding who will be the next prime minister for Ukraine, that’s a decision for Ukrainians. The U.S. government’s point of view, as far as I understand it, is we will work with whatever government is in Ukraine. I mean that’s for Ukrainians to decide, whether it’s a government headed by Tymoshenko or somebody else. My sense, though, is that, in talking with some people in the U.S. government, that if they had their choice, they would have liked to see the government continue, as opposed to new elections. And the problem here is, because the sense is that time is being lost and the opportunities are being lost, and the focus in Kiev seems to be on politics, rather than actually governing the country. And here is the scenario that I think worries some people if you want to see Ukraine move forward. If there are elections now, if those elections are held in, say, in December or January, it’s hard to get something done in terms of serious policy during elections. It’s hard in Ukraine. Certainly it’s hard here in the United States right now when we’re just a month out from our elections. But then, based on what we saw in 2006 or 2007, after the election it may take two or three months for Ukraine to form a coalition in the Rada and choose a prime minister. So that takes you maybe to April or early May. At that point you’re only six or seven months from the presidential elections, so everyone focuses on the presidential election. So the concern here is that – it’s my concern, but I also think it’s shared by some in the U.S. government – is that, you know, politics could dominate the next year and a half in Ukraine and it makes it hard for Ukraine to do things in terms of policies that Ukraine needs to push.

On Whether Early Election Will Have a Weakening Effect on Ukraine
“I’ll give you two answers to that. The first answer is -- there’s a lot of confidence, at least I have, that however the politics play out, it’s going to be democratic. I mean it seems all the major political forces -- Yushchenko, Tymoshenko, Yanukovych – understand that you’ve got to play by democratic rules and the Constitution. And that’s a good thing. It means Ukraine, fundamentally, is going to have democratic stability. The other side of the answer, though, is again that while you have the political debate going on, you’re not getting things accomplished, you’re not pursuing policies. I think, again, because I’m a little bit concerned, I wouldn’t call it a threat to Ukraine, but there’s a challenge -- in Moscow. And the question in my mind is – given this more assertive Russian foreign policy that you’re seeing now – is this a time for the Ukrainian leadership to be divided? You know, I think this would be the time really where it would make more sense to come together. Likewise, there are opportunities, the Membership Action Plan, that I think are going to be lost because the political infighting in Ukraine creates a situation where Germany and some of those countries that don’t support a Membership Action Plan could say, well, it’s not just about the Russian concern, it’s about we don’t have confidence in the sustainability of the political line within Kiev.”

On the Stance of John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s Campaigns on Ukraine
“My sense is that when you look at what both campaigns have said, what both candidates have said, I think – and this reflects the fact that support for Ukraine going back to 1993-1994 has really been a bi-partisan issue. I mean both sides support it. And certainly there’s not much difference when you look at what Senator McCain has said and what Senator Obama has said. They both support strong relations with Ukraine. They both support a Membership Action Plan. So, I think they differ on some questions, but I don’t think Ukraine is one of them.”

On Whether John McCain Can Be Perceived As Tougher on Russia
“It may be. But I think in both campaigns there is concern about Russia, I mean, certainly what we saw in August changed the assessment in Washington, and I think elsewhere in Europe about the rules that the Russians are prepared to play by. And it’s caused a greater degree of concern.”

On How the Russia-Georgia Conflict Impacts the Prospect of a NATO Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine
“I still think that ultimately a Membership Action Plan makes sense for Georgia and Ukraine. But you’re going to have to look at it in the current political realities. And at this point, when you’re looking at December, again, because of the position of some of the European states, because, I think, of the inability of the Bush administration in literally its last days to persuade the Europeans, given concerns about Russia, but also given the questions about what is going on within Ukraine, it just doesn’t seem it’s going to happen.”

Obama, McCain, and Ukraine

This morning I woke up very early: to watch a second presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain at 4 AM by Kiev time. Presidential candidates started with economic crisis and domestic politics. In this boring discussion Obama looked more self-confident and sounded more clear and knowing-how. That’s good for his rating, but it was not a point of my almost sleepless night. I was waiting for foreign block of a discussion. It was worth of waiting.

Usually Ukraine never becomes a significant topic of the debates of American presidential race. Today (yesterday – for USA) this rule was broken. Accompanied by Georgia, Ukraine became a part of the discussion of Obama and McCain. And I can say that in the knowledge of the topic McCain is much more stronger than his opponent. Knowing better, doing better?

Giving an answer to the question concerning a possibility of starting another Cold War (obviously with Russia), McCain said the following:
“I think that we're not going to have another Cold War with Russia. But Russia's behavior is certainly outside the norms of behavior that we would expect for nations which are very wealthy, as Russia has become, because of their petro dollars. Now, long ago, I warned about Vladimir Putin. I said: I looked into his eyes and saw three letters - K G B... He has exhibited most aggressive behavior, obviously, in Georgia. I said before, watch Ukraine. Ukraine, right now, is in the sights of Vladimir Putin, those that want to reassemble the old Soviet Union.
We've got to show moral support for Georgia. We've got to show moral support for Ukraine. We've got to advocate for their membership in NATO. We have to make the Russians understand that there are penalties for these this kind of behavior, this kind of naked aggression into Georgia, a tiny country and a tiny democracy".

Barack Obama showed much less knowledge about post-soviet region. He declared that Russia should be one of the central issues of the US presidency. But as I could notice Mr. Obama have no real interest in post-soviet developments. Talking about post-soviet countries and satellites, which should become a priority for American help to develop the economies, he mentioned only three states – actually members of the European Union:
“I agree with Sen. McCain on many of the steps that have to be taken. But we can't just provide moral support. We've got to provide moral support to the Poles and Estonia and Latvia and all of the nations that were former Soviet satellites. We've also got to provide them with financial and concrete assistance to help rebuild their economies. Georgia in particular is now on the brink of enormous economic challenges. And some say that that's what Putin intended in the first place”.

In the same style Barack Obama gave an explanation of the situation in Georgia:
“Back in April, I put out a statement saying that the situation in Georgia was unsustainable because you had Russian peacekeepers in these territories that were under dispute. And you knew that if the Russians themselves were trying to obtain some of these territories or push back against Georgia, that that was not a stable situation. So part of the job of the next commander-in-chief, in keeping all of you safe, is making sure that we can see some of the 21st Century challenges and anticipate them before they happen”.

But the very last point of Mr. Obama have hit me directly in the heart. He proposed American citizens to fight Russia by… reducing the energy consumption:
“And one last point I want to make about Russia. Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia. If we can reduce our energy consumption, that reduces the amount of petro dollars that they have to make mischief around the world. That will strengthen us and weaken them when it comes to issues like Georgia”.

The follow-by comment of McCain sounded much more promising as for Ukraine:
“Obviously energy is going to be a big, big factor. And Georgia and Ukraine are both major gateways of energy into Europe. And that's one of the reasons why it's in our interest. But the Russians, I think we can deal with them but they've got to understand that they're facing a very firm and determined United States of America that will defend our interests and that of other countries in the world”.

All I can say is that I hope that if Barack Obama become the President of United States, he will manage to find professional foreign politics counsellors to work with him in the White House.