Orange sunset as Ukraine poll heralds turn to Russia | World news | The Observer

The Observer: "Orange sunset as Ukraine poll heralds turn to Russia. Five years after Ukraine's Orange Revolution, its next presidential election is between two pro-Moscow candidates"

Both of the front-running candidates in the poll have indicated that firmer ties with Russia, whether for pragmatic or ideological reasons, will be a priority. The poll will thus ring the death knell for a pro-western revolution that degenerated into a morass of political infighting, compounded by economic crisis.

Leading the polls is Viktor Yanukovych, a former prime minister whose initial victory as the Russia-backed candidate in 2004 sparked allegations of a rigged vote. His only serious rival is Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister and Moscow's new favoured candidate. President Viktor Yushchenko, hero of the Orange Revolution, now has an approval rating below 3%. Last week he accused Yanukovych and Tymoshenko of comprising a "single Kremlin coalition", such was their joint desire for warmer relations with Moscow.

Whether Yanukovych or Tymoshenko wins, the goal of Nato membership, still aspired to by Yushchenko, is almost certain to be abandoned.

Yanukovych last week repeated his long-held stance that he would take Ukraine off the path to Nato membership. "Ukraine was and will be a non-aligned nation, as it is now," he told.

Get ready, get set, go! Ukraine officially launched a presidential election campaign on Monday. Today the nomination of the candidates starts.

Last time Ukraine elected president in 2004, when, after the Orange revolution, Viktor Yushchenko came to power, accusing his main rival Viktor Yanukovych in the falsification of the results of the previous tour of election. Now the situation has changed dramatically: according to polls, Mr. Yanukovych is a leading contender. Viktor Yushchenko – on contrary – may try to use his presidential administrative resource during his campaign, experts say.

The second rating has another hero of Orange revolution – the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko. Third – ex-Head of Parliament, and ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs Arseniy Yatseniuk.

Other pretenders are former Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Sergiy Tigipko, current Speaker of the Parliament Volodymyr Lytvyn, Communist party leader Petro Symonenko, and radically right politician Oleh Tyagnybok.

The nomination of the candidates starts today, on 20 October 2009, and will last until 6 November. The last day for the documents’ submission to the Central Electoral Commission is the 9 of November. The CEC has to register all the candidates until 13 November 2009.

Open Lists. Ukraine has learned how to hold free and fair elections, but it’s not enough to be called a true democracy.

In this post I would like to turn back to the question of the reform of electoral law in Ukraine. There are a lot of talks about how to change the way Ukrainians are electing the Parliament (I’ll stay away from the analysis of re-distribution of powers) or local Councils, but the very idea of reform is completely distorted. Instead of having a serious talk about the very details of a new electoral system that will fit to Ukrainian realities in a best way, most politicians are trying to switch the public attention to active, but non-effective discussions around one point – a need to move from the closed-party-lists to open-party-lists scheme, in frames of the current proportional voting system. I think it’s not enough at all.

Since the Orange revolution of 2004, all the elections in Ukraine were recognized as free and fair. But as a result of these free and fair elections, we, Ukrainians are receiving – again and again – the Parliament full of come-and-go people. The majority of Members of Parliament of Ukraine doesn’t make any serious decisions, but only thoughtlessly presses the “yes” or “no” buttons, in accordance with order of faction leaders. It has to be changed.

According to the current electoral law, Ukraine elects its Parliament on a base of proportional representation system with closed party lists. The system stipulates that Ukrainian citizens vote not for individuals, but for parties, which are receiving seats in Parliament proportionally to the amount of votes they had won. Every party draws up a list of its candidates for the seats in Parliament, but it must make public only the names of five first persons from the list. A couple of hundreds of other candidates may be hidden until the end of the vote – it’s a provision of the closed-party-lists type of proportional voting system.

As a result, according to the closed-party lists scheme, Ukrainians are voting not for all members of Parliament, but are only choosing between “groups of five”. Even if a party makes public the entire list, the electoral campaign has been centred on a little group of party leaders. And after the elections Ukrainian voters may realise that the party they voted for has in its list, for example, a personal massager of the party chief, or the secretary of a party sponsor. A very big problem of the current electoral system is also the fact that the Members of Parliament has almost no officially established connection with the regions of a country. People simply don’t feel they have a real representative in Parliament: there is no one to be called “my MP”.

It is naive to think that the problem will be cured, if all the party lists were open in its literal meaning – becoming public before the elections. Ukrainian parties are mostly based not on the ideology, but on their leaders who are associated with all the party. And the majority of Ukrainians will keep voting for the personalities they like, not taking care about any lists. (And even if an old woman from the village has an opportunity to read all the lists of all the parties, she will surely not be able to analyse them properly, and to estimate how much people from the list she may see in Parliament after the elections. To make the outcome of the parliamentary election more democratic, there is a need to change the voting system as a whole.

As to my point of view, the best thing for Ukraine is to come back to the majoritarian (plurality) system of vote: the person, not a party should win support of voters, and should represent Ukrainian people in Parliament. Ukraine still doesn’t have a developed party system. Imagine, only about 3% of the citizens of Ukraine are members of any party. That means that 97% of Ukrainians doesn’t feel close to any political party at all. Proportional system was established, among other issues, in order to build up the party system in Ukraine. This idea failed: new-formed Ukrainian democratic political parties in reality are something between the oligarchic lobby groups and fan clubs of charismatic leaders.

In frames of the current proportional, party-based system of vote, the easiest way for Ukraine would be to switch to one of the models of open party lists, when a voter receives a right not only to vote for a party, but also to express his or her preference for a particular candidate(s) in frames of the party list. That means that voter indicates not only a name of the party he or she favours, but also names the favourite candidates from this party, or even indicates the order of preference. Such a model is widely used in the countries of Western and Central Europe. I would propose also to move forward from a single constituency scheme Ukraine currently has. In this case the parties will have to draw up several regional lists of candidates, giving a chance for regional leaders to be elected, and also establishing a stronger link between regions and Parliament.

There are other things which I think have to be done to make the parliamentary election in Ukraine closer to the best democratic standards:
1. To adopt an Electoral Code, a single document, which would incorporate all the rules (including technical) concerning holding parliamentary, presidential and local elections.
2. To form the Registry of voters (at long last) to avoid fraud.
3. To change the provisions of electoral law, re-establishing the so-called “absence certificates” for people who are not at home at a day of election (for ex., they are in the other region of Ukraine or abroad) to have a possibility to realize their Constitutional right to vote.

What’s up, Ukraine: a headless Foreign Ministry and new talks on early presidential race.

The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko declared she is in favour of the early presidential election in her country. “The sooner there will be presidential election in Ukraine, the better it will be politically cured”, she said in the column for French Le Monde, published today. Today Mrs. Tymoshenko is on the travel to France, where she’s meeting with French President Nicolas Sarcozy.

Yulia Tymoshenko thinks that the biggest mistake of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko is that he used some dirty weapon against her. “I always offered him my hand. I was only person during the Orange revolution he could rely on. I had never betrayed him. The struggle will end with his political suicide”, she added. When asked what could stop her from becoming president in the near future, she said: "Nothing!"

Meanwhile, The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine was sacked yesterday. 250 Members of Parliament of Ukraine voted in favour of the dismissal of Mr. Ogryzko: the oppositional Party of Regions, the Communists, and 49 lawmakers from the parliamentary Block of Yulia Tymoshenko. As the authoritarian rule inside the Prime Minister’s faction is a well-known fact, the result of this vote means that Mrs. Tymoshenko was in favour of the dismissal. “Ohryzko did not suit me as a minister,” PM said. “He is not professional, he is a person who has been making provocations against the government.”

Mr. Ogryzko, always loyal to Viktor Yushchenko, recently was in a center of scandal with Russian foreign ministry: he warned the Ambassador of Russia in Ukraine, ex-Prime Minister of Russia Viktor Chernomyrdin that he may become persona non grata in Ukraine for his critical statements. Before his dismissal, Volodmyr Ogryzko addressed Parliament on the recent ruling of the U.N. court, establishing the maritime border between Ukraine and Romania – it is considered as a big fiasco of Ukrainian diplomacy, as Ukraine in fact lost a big part of its territory inside the Soviet Union border (the UN-court decision may become a dangerous precedent for future attempts to change existing post-Soviet borders).

The press-secretary of President Iryna Vannikova said the dismissal of Ohryzko “was untimely and ungrounded.” “It makes absolutely no sense to weaken the country’s foreign policy, and to create new source of tensions in the middle of the economic crisis,” she emphasized.

Some Western media say that the dismissal of Ogryzko may shift Ukrainian foreign policy from pro-Western to pro-Russian. I would not agree with that. I’d better say that the Ministry of Foreign affairs was clearly not friendly to Russia, and also was often acting against the interests of its own country – Ukraine – moving the domestic political quarrels on the international stage. However, taking to the account the recent statements of Mrs. Tymoshenko in Le Monde, the last tendency mentioned above is not going to change.

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.

It’s a democracy. The question calling the President of Ukraine to leave the country has won the biggest Internet rating.

Today the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko held his annual concluding press conference. In frames of this event he has answered a couple of questions of Ukrainian Internet users, which were submitted in advance. I was following the process of submission of questions with a big interest, as the most popular one appeared to be the following: Mr. President, how much money should the people of Ukraine pay to convince you and other top authorities to leave this country?

Actually, it is not a question but an attitude of Ukrainians toward President in particular, and all the ruling politicians in general. I voted for it, and a lot of my friends – almost all of the people I was talking with during last 2-3 weeks – did the same. I may say that Ukrainians of very different positions and ranges supported this question. For example, the link to this question I received by e-mail from my friend who is a housewife with a very active social position. Of course I didn’t believe that the question would be really asked. But it happened, and all the Ukraine has heard it during a live translation of the press conference on TV and radio. I have to mention that President was surely prepared for that. And tried to move the responsibility for this question outside the borders of Ukraine.

Viktor Yushchenko declared that “it is a provocation”, and that “the respected authors of this question are situated not in Ukraine, and don’t represent Ukrainians” (having in mind Russians, of course). “We even can not pose a question without help”, President assumed. Also Mr. Yushchenko said, “The real authorities should be half step ahead to show the way to nation”. The leader of nation shall tell, “our choice is such-and-such, we have to go in such a direction”, no matter “you like it or not”.

And some extra quotations of President I liked the most:
“The version of early presidential election is written not in Ukrainian offices”.
“Parliament is the most destabilising institution”.
“It is good when Parliament works like an aquarium – clear and visible”.

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”.

Total opposition. All the main political players and institutions in Ukraine are in opposition to each other.

Starting from the middle of last week, the Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko was moving step by step to the point of no return in her relationship with the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko, making rougher and rougher statements. On Saturday, 20 December she reached this point. Mrs. Tymoshenko publicly declared she is in opposition to President and wishes him to resign immediately, called him a thief, accused him in the fall of a national currency rate, and said she is sorry for helping him to become President in 2004.

“I don’t want to be a member of such a governing team, and that’s why I’m clearly declaring that I am in opposition to such an authorities like the President of Ukraine, Head of the National Bank of Ukraine, and all the criminal group that surrounds them”, Prime Minister said during the press briefing. “I am very sorry that this person, I’m talking about President Yushchenko, in favour of whom I was standing on all the maydans (squares. – T.V.), agitating and convincing people for him as an honest and moral politician, and now he went down to such a level, when it is shameful even to say his name”.

Viktor Yushchenko will answer to Mrs. Tymoshenko today at 8 PM of Kyiv time, at the weekly news show on Inter TV channel. But the press service of President has already quoted his interview. Mr. Yushchenko says that the last statements of PM Yulia Tymoshenko put her “in the opposition to Ukrainian people and the country”.

“Today the problem is not in my relationship with this lady”, President says. “She declared the opposition to the nation, to the country”. Viktor Yushchenko is sure that Prime Minister just wants to escape from the responsibility for her actions as a Head of Government.

“The situation is obviously out of control of Prime Minister for a long time”, Mr. Yushchenko emphasized. “But today the moment of responsibility is coming close. Who will be responsible for the inflation of 22%? External crisis? Our crisis is sitting on Grushevskogo street, 7th floor, in the office of Prime Minister”.

The central bank attacked back the Government two days before, stating that “the government's inept policies in running the economy... led to a situation in December in which the country could find itself in the internal default”. “The Government now has no funds to pay salaries, pensions and social benefits or to cover its domestic and external obligations”, the National Bank of Ukraine informed.

So, today the Prime Minister of Ukraine is in opposition to the President of Ukraine and to the National Bank of Ukraine. The President of Ukraine is in opposition to Prime Minister. The National Bank is also acting like a political body, declaring its non-support of the Government and its policies. Official opposition – the Party of Regions – is declaring it is against all the powers mentioned above, and is waiting for spring to come to power after the fail of the “Orange leaders”. The new-elected Speaker of the Parliament Volodymyr Lytvyn is claiming for neutrality, but in fact is in opposition to everyone who is interested in the snap parliamentary election, which would take the high post in Parliament off from him.

Parliamentary Cheating II. OK, the Speaker is elected, but is there any coalition in Ukrainian Parliament?

On Tuesday, 9 December at 17.46 PM by Kiev time Volodymyr Lytvyn was elected as a Head of the Verkhovna Rada. His candidacy was supported by 154 MPs from the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (total size of faction – 156 MPs), 40 MP’s from the Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defence Block (total size of faction – 72), 20 MP’s from the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn (total size – 20), and also 27 MP’s from the Communist party faction (total size – 27) and 3 MPs from the Party of Regions (total size – 175).

It was really hard to believe that the Presidential faction of the Our Ukraine - People’s Self-Defence Block (OU-PSD) will –support Volodymyr Lytvyn, together with the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) and even with communists, despite the will of President Viktor Yushchenko, who was against the candidacy of Mr. Lytvyn and publicly in favour Ivan Plyushch, member of his party. But the things went even further: a new-elected Head of Parliament declared the formation of the coalition of OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn.

The Tuesday events are still the object of discussion not only for political analysts, but also for politicians themselves. I would quote the main statements of historical Tuesday and the following day.

Tuesday, 9 December 2008:

Petro Symonenko, leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine stated his party supported the candidacy of Volodymyr Lytvyn to unblock the work of Parliament to fight the world economy crisis consequences. “We voted for the work of Verkhovna Rada”, he said, adding that the communists would never vote for Ivan Plyushch or any other candidacy from national-democratic forces.

Head of the Verkhovna Rada Volodymyr Lytvyn doesn’t see any preconditions to re-elect Prime Minister or to make cardinal changes of Government. But “it’s obvious that there will be some proposals from the coalition concerning the structure of the Government”, Mr. Lytvyn thinks.

Our Ukraine - People’s Self-Defence faction did not approve a text of the Treaty, forming the coalition of OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Volodymyr Lytvyn, the press-service of OU-PSD faction informed. Deputy Head of the faction Borys Tarasiuk signed the text of Coalition Treaty without the faction’s agreement. The project of Coalition Treaty will be in the agenda of a faction sitting on 10 December.

The Party of Regions has doubts on the liveliness of a new-formed coalition, if it will not have a permanent support of the Communist party, one of the PR faction leaders Oleksandr Efremov said. “It’s hard to imagine, how communists could work together with the nationalists”, he mentioned. “Without the Communist Party faction, the new-formed coalition doesn’t have 226 votes to approve decisions in Parliament”.

Member of Parliament of the OU-PSD faction (leader of the PSD) Vladyslav Kaskiv declared that there is no coalition in parliament as there is no decision of the OU-PSD faction on participation in this coalition; and there is also no Coalition Treaty as nobody in the OU-PSD is familiar with such a document. “De facto we can say that Volodymyr Lytvyn, obviously moved by positive emotions, made a political statement. But there are no legal fact of forming the coalition”, Mr. Kaskiv said. “We can not do good things with not honest methods… The misrepresenting of facts took place today”.

Wednesday, 10 December 2008:

The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko greets Volodymyr Lytvyn for his election as a Head of Verkhovna Rada. “I hope that the election to this responsible position of so experienced and well-balanced politician will permit to unblock a work of the highest lawmaking institution of a country”, he noticed. Parliament has to approve anti-crisis laws and the project of a State Budget for 2009 as an urgent matter, and the needed condition for that is “parliamentary coalition, efficient and capable de jure and de facto”.

Member of Parliament of OU-PSD faction Ksenia Lyapina informed, “During 4 days we have to sign a Treaty (coalition treaty. – TV); if not, the Head of the Verkhovna Rada has to disown his statement about the formation of a coalition”. During the OU-PSD faction sitting on 10 December, MPs “came to a conclusion that the Coalition Treaty doesn’t exist, nobody of us signed it or authorised anybody to sign it”, Mrs. Lyapina noticed.

Taras Stetskiv, Member of Parliament (OU-PSD, PSD branch) emphasized that the coalition “legally does not exist as it is not signed”.

Oleksandr Efremov, the Party of Regions faction noticed that during the Coordination Council sitting Wednesday, 10 December “one of the Deputy Heads of OU-PSD block Roman Zvarych declared that his faction didn’t make a decision on formation of a coalition with the BYT and the Block of Lytvyn, and Borys Tarasiuk was not authorised to sign the Coalition agreement. So, in reality there is no parliamentary coalition”.

Statement of the Presidium of the Political Council of the party of Regions: “So-called formation of a coalition in Parliament is the another adventure and fraud of people. We don’t believe in capacity of this so-called coalition not only because it doesn’t have the quantity of voices needed. We don’t believe in this coalition as it is based on the politicians who had twice proved their incapacity to work together, to work effectively”… “Ukraine will have to watch again the scandal show of Orange chiefs, who are eager to sink each other in a spoon of water. The Party of Regions is out of this campaign. We also would like to hear a clear position of communists – which was their motivation, when they supported Oranges?”

First Deputy Head of the BYT faction Andriy Kozhemyakin hopes that “a progressive part” of the Party of Regions faction will take part in a constructive work of the Parliament. “It is obvious that the highest management of the Party of Regions is leaded by its own ambitions, not understanding that the crisis is a threat for independence of Ukraine”, he added.

Deputy Head of the OU-PSD faction Borys Tarasiuk issued a statement where he noticed that “due to the absence of a Head of the OU-PSD faction Ivan Kyrylenko during the negotiations, I took responsibility to sign the document on founding of a coalition of three factions – OU-PSD, BYT, and the Block of Lytvyn. Of course, I understood that it would be better if the Head of the faction signed this document. But I don’t know whether Ukrainians would understand us, if, delaying action until the next day, we lost this unique chance to start to work in Parliament normally”.

The Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko in her TV appeal to the citizens: “Parliamentary political crisis is over. A normal and consistent work will start in Verkhovna Rada tomorrow. Our hands are free from the irons… All these positive steps were done not with the help of President, but in spite of his active countermeasures to the formation of the Coalition”.

So, is there any coalition in Parliament? Nobody knows. The answer to this question depends on the results of current negotiations of parliamentary factions.

P.S. There is still a possibility of formation of a coalition in Verkhovna Rada with participation of the Party of Regions.

Chasing the shadow. What kind of Ukraine the President dreams of?

During these latter days I was thinking a lot, trying to find an answer to one question: what is the current political strategy of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko? It emerged that it’s not an easy thing to understand. Since the early autumn President is literally pushing Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to form a coalition with the Party of Regions (PR) of Viktor Yanukovych, one of the main “enemies” of Orange Revolution. But the same time Viktor Yushchenko doesn’t want this alliance to be formed.

In September 2008 Mr. Yushchenko accused Mrs. Tymoshenko in high treason (after the vote for cutting presidential powers, which she performed together with the PR on 2nd of September). Then members of President’s Our Ukraine party stepped out of so-called Democratic coalition with the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT), de facto blocking the work of Parliament. In October President issued a decree that dismissed Verkhovna Rada and scheduled early parliamentary election. In November Viktor Yushchenko decided to cast aside the idea of snap election, publicly encouraging parliamentary factions to unite for adoption of anti-crisis legislation in the name of state interests. The same time Our Ukraine party officially declared that it would not form a coalition with the BYT and/or the PR faction. No logic?

Mr. Yushchenko seems to be in favour of a kind of “technical coalition”, when parliamentary factions vote concordantly, but do not sign any coalition papers. Theoretically, it gives an opportunity for President to call early election any time he wants (it would be legitimate as the coalition doesn’t exist), and also to question the legitimacy of Government any day he’s in a mood for. Nevertheless, the BYT and the PR were close to accept the idea of "technical coalition", but… Viktor Yushchenko ruined it himself. He declared that only Our Ukraine faction should propose the candidacy for Speaker, which was unacceptable for the biggest parliamentary parties. As a result, the BYT and the PR announced their possible alliance, but President answered to that by calling the probable coalition “a danger for Ukrainian democracy”.

What is the President’s logic today, and what does he want to achieve in a long run? Igor Kril, member of the United Centre party founded by Head of the President’s Secretariat Viktor Baloha, gave a little hint on Friday, 5 December. Talking about a candidacy of Prime Minister, acceptable for his party, Mr. Kril said, the PM “should not run for President”. Which means that he/she will not be a competitor for Viktor Yushchenko in 2009. That gives us a tip, why President choose as his Speaker candidate Ivan Plushch, Soviet-times’ Communist Party activist, and now member of Our Ukraine – Mr. Plusch doesn’t have noticeable political ambitions.

The ideal system of top state authorities in Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko is dreaming of, should be built of modest “technical” people, and crowned by President. Any strong political player holding a key rating-forming position in Government or Parliament is a priory a threat for stability of the mentioned system. It is without doubt that Mr. Yushchenko will keep fighting these threats, using his favourite methods – false situational alliances, presidential veto, and a shadow of snap parliamentary poll. The endless circle may be broken only by presidential election (or Constitutional reform), which will mark a starting point for a new political game. Hopefully, it will be performed according to rules of democracy.

The Bogus Marriage. A coalition of the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko and the Party of Regions is likely to be formed in December 2008.

The Thursday’s sitting of Verkhovna Rada lasted only 8 minutes. Members of Parliament decided to take a time-out for extra negotiations, and to renew their work on Tuesday, 9 December. MPs invited the President of Ukraine and Prime Minister to be present on the sitting that day to witness how Parliament will get out of crisis. Viktor Yushchenko will not come to Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday, he’s going to pay a working visit to Lithuania. Maybe that’s right decision: it will be surely not “his day”. In contrary, Yulia Tymoshenko may appear in Parliament – to celebrate another political victory of her party.

As it was predicted earlier, a coalition of the Party of Regions (PR) and the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko (BYT) looks like just a matter of time. At least, leaders and members of both factions are not denying the fact of negotiations on this issue anymore. On 2 December, MP from the BYT faction Valeriy Pysarenko said “the BYT is ready to form a coalition with the Party of Regions”. The same statements were made by some other BYT and PR MPs during this week. In the Party of Regions’ official rhetoric the future coalition is called as “anti-crisis” and “built on pure economic reasons”, not on ideological ground.

According to insider’s information, the text of a new coalition treaty has already been initialized. But it doesn’t mean that the document will be signed on Tuesday. At first, the PR and BYT have to elect a new Speaker. It still may be a leader of the People's Party Volodymyr Lytvyn or member of the Party of Regions and current First Vice-Speaker Oleksandr Lavrynovych. The BYT and PR have enough MPs – 331 (the constitutional majority is 300 MPs out of 450) – to amend the Constitution in first reading. The main goal of the reform will be to elect President of Ukraine not by popular vote, but in Parliament, which is more convenient for big parliamentary parties. After a joint vote on the constitutional amendment the BYT-PR coalition may be officially formed. New allies will go on with the constitutional reform process after the New Year holidays, in early February. As a result, Ukraine may have President Viktor Yanukovych, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Viktor Yushchenko in opposition, like in “old good times”.

President Yushchenko – of course – doesn't like the BYT-PR reformation ideas. “If this kind of consolidation will not be restrained by the ideological positions, national interests, democratic interests, it may lead to serious challenges for Ukrainian democracy”, he declared on 4 December. President highlighted that the main danger of the BYT-PR coalition is “a deep revision of the Constitution of Ukraine”, which includes the idea of election of President in Parliament. “These are things which are ruining Ukrainian democracy and don’t correspond with our aspirations. This will throw Ukraine back from the sphere of stability for many years”, President argued. He emphasised he “will not allow” that.

Ukrainian media have already informed with reference to the reliable source at the Presidential Secretariat that “there is a new decree on snap election on the President’s working table”, and it is with open date.

Boring and sad: the best words to explain a current state of Ukrainian politics.

The President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko was on TV yesterday. He appeared in a live political evening show “Svoboda slova” (Freedom of Speech) at ICTV channel. A lot of my friends were looking forward to that event as it might give some keys to predict future developments in Ukrainian politics. It didn’t give any hints. I was sitting in my kitchen, drinking tea and watching TV prepared to make notes, when I suddenly realised that I’m terribly bored. Bored of lack of constructivism and predictability in what our politicians are doing or saying. It was really sad to think that way.

Here are some points I've noticed. First of all, President wanted to separate himself from all the problems the country is suffering of. “Government lost control over inflation”, “the Government’s politic was not a politic of Maydan”, claimed Viktor Yushchenko. He accused in political and economy crisis a “state power” as something to which he doesn’t have any relation at all.

The second main point is about the estimation of future of Parliament. Verkhovna Rada should work; otherwise there will be early election – that was the President’s message. Viktor Yushchenko still hopes that it is possible to elect a technical Speaker and to build a so-called situational coalition in Parliament. (Some ideas on “technical coalition” – in one of my previous posts here). A candidacy for Speaker’s chair “should be proposed by Our Ukraine party”, President thinks. But at the same time he mentions, “Our Ukraine is half-bought by BYT”.

Third point is that the very idea of early election is still alive, despite of President’s Secretariat arguments. After a snap parliamentary poll, all the parties elected may start “from a white peace of paper”, hopes Mr. Yushchenko, “it will be possible to do the manoeuvres, impossible now”.

P.S. On 2 December Parliament was working only for a little bit more than a half of an hour. Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday. Two alternatives have been discussed in couloirs: total paralysis of Parliament followed with snap election or the coalition of the Block of Yulia Tymoshenko and the Party of Regions (the details – in this post). Volodymyr Lytvyn has already called this possible coalition as “coup d’etat”.

Orange fresh. Who is responsible for the failure of the Ukrainian democratic breakthrough of 2004?

Better late than never. Here is the topic I promised to write about yesterday, based on a letter of Joseph Gregg from San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Gregg is not a professional political analyst, but he is following the Ukrainian politics with a big interest. In the last two years he spent several months in Ukraine; he has also visited Russia a lot. In his letter addressed to me as an author of this web page, he expressed some thoughts about the President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko and the nature of failure of the Orange Revolution’ hopes and promises, and asked me for a follow-up opinion. At first, some quotations from the letter:

After the attempt on his life and subsequent events of Maidan, the goodwill of
the world was made available to him. Instead of promises delivered, he was
not interested in the running of the business of the country, only in its
ceremonial leadership with a tone of condescension. The shame is that
these things needed to be done are yet devalued by his other pernicious and ego
led actions. Convinced he is Messiah, he fails to notice no one longer
follows...

No matter whom you support, we are all embarrassed and diminished
by his actions to the PM. His latest protestations for her to
pay the Gazprom debt make him the lap dog of Medvedev at the expense of
every Ukrainian. It is as if he would gladly shout “Fire!" in a crowded
theater hoping someone might trample "the Braided One's" toes without even
momentary consideration of other lives that might be lost in the
stampede.

The problems are huge, the solutions deceptively simple:
direct vote of the citizens for their representative to the VR; equality under
the law and the responsibility for it by elected officials and government
workers; a judiciary that is independent and righteous.

Let me start from the end. I agree that the problems Ukraine is facing today are huge, but the solutions are not as simple as it may seem. Ukraine is in need of deep structural reforms – yes, we have to improve our judicial system, but also we need structural economic reforms, new tax policy, land reform, changes in the model of local budgeting, re-building of a system of social security, new energy strategy, and a lot of other things, which are important and urgent. To accomplish these goals, first of all, we need the Parliament, which is able to work effectively. The experience of the last three years demonstrated that Ukraine will never get such a Parliament, using proportional system of vote – no matter, what kind of party list we would adopt (closed or open).

Ukrainian political parties do not have mass membership. They are built not on the values that have a strong public support, but around the charismatic leaders. “Batkivshchyna” party (and even Block of Yulia Tymoshenko) is nothing without Yulia Tymoshenko; the Party of Regions will break up without Viktor Yanukovych. The election of Viktor Yushchenko as an official leader of “Our Ukraine” is nothing more than an attempt to save the party, which is falling apart. All political system of Ukraine is highly corrupt, and even the essential democratic institutions like the Constitutional Court or Central Electoral Commission are fully packed with main parties’ protégés.

One of the public reasons of switching to the proportional voting system was the idea that it will help to build up a real party system in Ukraine. In fact, it just has led to the paralysing of the lawmaking branch of the state power. To cure that disease we should move back to majority vote – at least to give an opportunity for regional leaders to be present in the Verkhovna Rada, not selling themselves to any party (personality).

Next point I would like to mention concerns the President of Ukraine personally. I do not agree with people making from Viktor Yushchenko a kind of anti-hero, badly treating the country and innocent lady Prime Minister. For example, in the question of Russian Gazprom debt neither he nor she was an independent observer. The current non-transparent scheme of gas supply (and transit) in Ukraine was established after the Orange revolution, and was not changed in times when Yulia Tymoshenko was not a Prime Minister.

I agree that the ideals and promises of the Orange Revolution were ruined to a large extent because of Viktor Yushchenko personal weakness. Standing on Maydan, he declared that “criminals of Kuchma times” will be in prison, but in less than a half of a year he was shaking hands with people, whom he previously publicly called as thieves. In other words, he just failed to be tough with his opponents. The main problem of Viktor Yushchenko was that he talked a lot about the changes, but in fact didn’t change anything essentially. Except of his friends (the current team of Mr. Yushchenko is almost free from his comrades of Maydan times).

I want to believe that Viktor Yushchenko is a good person and a sincere patriot of Ukraine. But he is not good enough as the President. He would be a great leader of a country with well-developed democratic traditions, a country, which is not situated on the edge of geopolitical interests of the world powers. Ukraine is definitely not such a country. To govern Ukraine is a big challenge for every politician.

It’s easy to blame Viktor Yushchenko for political impotence. But let me remind that he wasn’t standing on Maydan alone. All the people leading the Orange Revolution are equally responsible for the weakness of today’s Ukraine. The leaders of the Orange revolution had a lot of nice-sounded slogans, but also a total absence of strategy on future governing. They asked us to shout, “Kuchma go away”, and “Yushchenko, yes!”, but in fact they didn’t even think, what to do after Leonid Kuchma would really go away. For almost four years the Orange leaders haven’t worked out a clear step-by-step plan on how to make Ukraine prosperous and democratic. They go on thinking how to get rid of each other. That’s the main problem of contemporary Ukraine. We are in terrible need of new fresh leaders who will end the deadlock. But there are no sigh of such a new movements. Just show me that growing-up centre of progress in Ukraine, and I will join this team.

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.