[Ohio UZO News] Ukraine: WP; KP; VOA; Jamestown

[Deychak, Orest]

The Washington Post

A Section

World Digest 

16 October 2009

FINAL

A10

U.S.-Ukraine Talks Raise Ire in Moscow

Russia said Thursday that it was worried about U.S. talks on the use of
Ukrainian radar stations as part of a revised missile defense shield, a
step that could hurt efforts to reset ties between the two Cold War
foes.

Russia, which is sensitive to any hint of U.S. cooperation with former
Soviet republics, initially welcomed President Obama's scrapping of
Bush-era plans for a missile defense system in Central Europe.

But Moscow has been irked by a U.S. statement that countries such as
Ukraine could contribute early-warning information as part of the
revised shield plan and by reports that talks between the United States
and Ukraine on the issue had begun.

-- Reuters

 

Complete article on website:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR200910
1501543_pf.html

 

 

Kyiv Post

www.kyivpost.com

October 15, 2009

OP-ED


Washington warming up to idea of President Tymoshenko


 

Taras Kuzio thinks the presidential race is the prime minister's to
lose.

Washington is less excited about the Jan. 17 presidential election than
it was five years ago. Gone is the optimism of a new fresh start and a
firm belief in a democratic, pro-Western opposition confirmed by the
mass uprising of Ukrainians for their democratic rights in the Orange
Revolution.

Although it had produced tremendous sympathy throughout North America
and Europe, it would be no exaggeration to say that Washington was
probably the most captivated of all NATO and European Union capital
cities. 

This euphoria was clearly seen in Victor Yushchenko's triumphant visit
to Washington in April 2005 (witnessed by this author). During one long
day, President Yushchenko had the honor to speak to both houses of
Congress, attend a reception hosted by the International Republican
Institute and National Democratic Institute and an evening banquet in
his honor by the Ukrainian-American diaspora.

Yushchenko began to lose his support and popular image starting in 2007.
But, as in Ukraine, the critical year that destroyed his image and
popularity in the West and Ukraine was last year. In 2007-2008,
political crises, inter-elite conflicts, calls for elections and
paralyzed state institutions led first to Ukraine fatigue and then to
Yushchenko fatigue in Washington and other Western capital cities. The
outcome of this is that, on the eve of the 2010 elections, Yushchenko is
no longer discussed as a serious candidate in Washington (or Brussels,
the seat of European Union government).

As one U.S. government expert on Ukraine told me: "He is on another
planet," a reference to Yushchenko's image of not being in touch with
reality. This is a poor personality trait for any politician to have,
especially a leader of a country. U.S. government officials who have
visited Yushchenko in the last two years have noted his detachment from
reality.

Yushchenko's clean image of five years ago has also evaporated. U.S.
government experts on Ukraine and experts in Washington's many think
tanks now have no reservations in stating that they believe Yushchenko
is corrupt. "Yushchenko had the opportunity to transform the
fundamentally corrupt gas relations with Russia after the Orange
Revolution.  It is hard to explain his embrace of the corrupt January
2006 gas agreements, unless people near him have a personal interest,"
Ed Chow, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies think tank, said. The prestigious Economist magazine and Andrew
Wilson, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, have
also pointed to energy corruption as having undermined the Yushchenko
presidency.

A perhaps bigger disappointment in Washington is that of First Lady
Kateryna Yushchenko. As an American, it was assumed that she would have
a positive influence on the president. Instead, it is believed by
Washington experts on Ukraine and by the Ukrainian-American diaspora in
the city that the first lady has had a negative influence on Yushchenko.
She is, particularly, blamed for inflaming of his relations with Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. One will not hear a positive view about the
first lady in most places in Washington.

A Ukrainian-American leader said that the first lady had "gone native;"
in other words, she had become more Ukrainian than American in the
course of her two decades of living in the country. 

Washington is slowly evolving to a position where it believes that there
are only two serious candidates: Tymoshenko and Party of Regions leader
Victor Yanukovych. This does not mean, U.S. Helsinki Commission policy
adviser Orest Deychakiwsky pointed out, that there is great enthusiasm
for any of Ukraine's presidential candidates. This makes the 2010 race
very different from 2004, when Washington clearly was sympathetic for
Yushchenko. "Looking at the alternatives that are available, she looks
the most appealing," a U.S. government expert on Ukraine said.

In 2006-2008, Tymoshenko's Washington and European image improved
remarkably for the better, as seen by her successful February 2007 visit
to the United States and her numerous visits to Brussels. Washington is
little different to Ukraine with regard to the reasons why Tymoshenko
lost support in the spring when there were coalition negotiations with
Yanukovych and attempts to change the constitution. These set back her
reputation and generated a view that there is little difference between
them all. 

Such views are not static but continue to evolve. This is clearly seen
in Institute for International Relations senior fellow Anders Aslund
who, in 2005, was Tymoshenko's biggest Western critic but is now one of
her strongest Western supporters. This evolution of attitudes in
Washington to Tymoshenko will continue in the course of the election
campaign, especially after round one. Of the two main candidates
(Tymoshenko and Yanukovych) the "momentum is currently moving in her
direction in Washington," Deychakiwsky said.

Tymoshenko is a "natural politician," one U.S. government expert on
Ukraine said, and she knows how to make every person in a room believe
she is talking only to them. She is a "doer" and therefore has the
potential to become, as Americans call them, a "transformational"
president who could leave her positive mark on Ukraine through changing
it for the better.

Of the main presidential candidates, some believe that only Tymoshenko
has the possibility of changing Ukraine for the better. In the course of
doing so, she could ensure that her name went down in Ukrainian history.

If this happens, her legacy would differ from Yushchenko's. There is a
widespread view that his time in office was one of "wasted
opportunities." In becoming a "transformational" president, Tymoshenko
would be more likely to be elected for a second term (which
Washingtonians believe is unlikely for Yushchenko). Yushchenko, like
Leonid Kravchuk, will only go down in history as having served one term
in office. Kravchuk entered the second round and won 44 percent of the
vote; neither circumstance is possible for Yushchenko, who has up to 5
percent support at the moment, if polls are to be believed.

Of the major candidates for president, the best chance for implementing
much-needed reform of the energy sector is probably with Tymoshenko.  

Washington experts on Ukraine, such as Aslund, credit Tymoshenko with
leading the government that took Ukraine into the World Trade
Organization and that negotiated a $16.4 billion standby agreement with
the International Monetary Fund. Tymoshenko is also credited in
Washington with removing the corrupt gas intermediary RosUkrEnergo and
with agreeing to pay market prices for Russian gas.

Washington still has reservations about Yanukovych, especially after he
strongly backed separatism in Georgia when the Party of Regions
supported resolutions in the Ukrainian and Crimean parliaments to
recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Even
pro-Russian Belarus did not go this far. Yanukovych may have employed
U.S. consultants Paul Manafort for five years. But they have failed to
change Yanukovych's image in the United States. As one Washington expert
on Ukraine said: "Manafort will work for anybody. It is wrong to believe
that he has links to the Republican Party."

You can hear occasionally from Ukraine experts in the U.S., such as
Atlantic Council senior fellow Adrian Karatnycky and others that there
is little to be concerned about from a Yanukovych election victory. They
point to the election of "pro-Russian" Leonid Kuchma in 1994, which did
not lead to radical changes in Ukraine's geopolitical orientation. In
any event, Karatnycky argues "this is not likely to be a pivotal
election in which Ukraine will make a decisive geopolitical choice of
either the West or Russia."

The comparison with Kuchma ignores three factors.

Firstly, Ukraine in 2010 is very different to Ukraine in 1994, when
there was no organized pro-Russian political force except the Communist
Party. Secondly, contemporary Russia is very different from the Russia
of 16 years ago. So, too, is Boris Yeltsin different from the Vladimir
Putin-Dmitry Medvedev duo. Thirdly, Kuchma and Yanukovych come from
different backgrounds, the former from the Communist nomenklatura and
the latter from working class and criminal. They also come from
different ethnic backgrounds. Kuchma is Ukrainian, Yanukovych was born
in Belarus and raised in Sovietized Donetsk. 

Nevertheless, Karatnycky believes reforms have a better chance if
Tymoshenko or Yatseniuk are elected, as he does not believe that
Yanukovych has a firm grasp of economic policy. While he does not
believe that President Yanukovych would be "slavishly pro-Russian,"
Karatnycky also remains concerned by the influence of the pro-Russian
wing in the Party of Regions.

Yatseniuk has not made an impression on Washington and it is too late
for him to do so. As a U.S. government expert said, he has not caught
Washington's imagination in the same manner as Yushchenko had five years
ago. When Yatseniuk first presented himself as a candidate last year, he
was seen as a potential representative of a new pro-Western, younger
generation.

Today, Washington does not know what Yatseniuk stands for (perhaps he
doesn't know himself?). Yatseniuk "has no clear focus," has generated a
"healthy degree of skepticism," as one expert said. 

Skepticism has grown after Yatseniuk's lackluster performance at the
September summit of the Yalta European Strategy, which was attended by
Washington, D.C. Ukraine experts, such as Aslund and Ambassador Steven
Pifer.  American and European guests at the summit came to the same
conclusion that -- of the three candidates who spoke -- Tymoshenko was
by far the most polished, professional and convincing.

There is a widespread belief in Washington that Yatseniuk began his
election campaign too early and that it is therefore now in trouble. In
Yalta, Yatseniuk's attempt at showing he was a "tough guy" fell flat on
Americans and Europeans. 

Yatseniuk is also seen as too arrogant, especially for somebody who has
only turned 35, a trait in evidence in the answers he gave at a luncheon
in Washington when he was foreign minister.

Washington opinion is increasingly moving towards two viewpoints. 

First is the view that the Jan. 17 presidential election will be mainly
a contest between Tymoshenko and Yanukovych. 

Secondly, Ukraine experts, such as professor Paul D'Anieri believe that
Tymoshenko is likely to win the second round.  Karatnycky agrees,
believing that, despite the economic crisis, she will likely win support
from "second echelon" candidates (Sergiy Tigipko, Yatseniuk, Anatoliy
Grytsenko) in the three weeks between rounds one and two.

 Taras Kuzio is editor of Ukraine Analyst and a senior fellow at the
chair of Ukrainian Studies, University of Toronto. He can be reached at
tkuzio at rogers.com <mailto:tkuzio at rogers.com> .

Voice Of America

 

[VIDEO] Brzezinski: "If Georgia or Ukraine falter, Russia again becomes
an empire."

http://www.voanews.com/ukrainian/2009-10-13-voa10.cfm

 

Check out VOA Ukrainian service website for other recent interviews with
Western experts Adrian Karatnycky and Taras Kuzio.


Jamestown Blog on Russia and Eurasia


http://www.jamestown.org/blog/ <http://www.jamestown.org/blog/> 


Thursday, October 15, 2009


Ukraine's Pre-Election Update

by Tammy Lynch

On October 19, Ukraine's presidential election campaign will officially
begin, in advance of the first round of elections on January 17. 

The campaign is set to take place during Ukraine's worst economic crisis
since the mid-1990s, amid an atmosphere of cynicism and increasing
apathy. Nevertheless, a recent poll suggests that a majority of
Ukrainians plan to vote in the election. 

The Kyiv-based Research and Branding Group found 60% of those polled
said they were likely to vote, while 23% may vote. In 2004, the Central
Election Commission recorded an approximate 75% turnout in the
first-round of the election. However, given questions raised by monitors
about the entire election process in 2004, it is likely that this figure
is inflated.

The bad news for the current leadership is that they continue to trail
in the polls behind nominal opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych. Mr.
Yanukovych will forever be known as the man who was named president
during the 2004 fraudulent election, but saw his "victory" overturned by
massive street protests and the country's Supreme Court. There is every
possibility that he could also become known as Ukraine's next president.


This month's Research and Branding poll gives Yanukovych 30.2% support,
with Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko garnering 18.5% and upstart Arseniy
Yantsenyuk earning 8.9%. President Viktor Yushchenko barely rates on the
chart. The President - blamed for not fulfilling most reforms demanded
during the 2004 protests that led to his election - is supported by just
3.1%. 

The poll shows a slight lengthening of Yanukovych's lead over
Tymoshenko. In an August poll by the same company, Yanukovych was
supported by 26% of those asked, while Tymoshenko earned 16.5%.
Yatsenyuk at that time could count on 12.5%. 

Yanukovych appears to have benefited from the continuing economic
crisis, a number of unproven corruption charges from opponents against
Tymoshenko, and Yanukovych's loud but financially untenable demands to
raise pensions and minimum wages. 

In response, Tymoshenko, who is known as a highly effective personal
campaigner, is pushing her Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko hard, with her most
important allies focusing on the election issue. It is possible that she
is spurred by the knowledge that her bloc is dangerously close to
splintering, held loosely together only by her personal power and
prestige. The Russia-tilting ProUA.com recently reported a back-door
conversation with a Party of Regions (Yanukovych) deputy, suggesting
that if Tymoshenko loses the presidency, they have assurances of the
defection of a large number of her current allies. 

All is not rosy for Yanukovych, however. ProUA also reported that
support for him personally - and of more importance, financially - is
weak within his own party. He also is an inferior campaigner to
Tymoshenko, although he has improved in recent years. And there is
trepidation within Yanukovych's Party of Regions over past polling
numbers for Tymoshenko that proved to be up to 10 points less than
actual results. 

The biggest loser since August clearly is Arseniy Yatsenyuk, however,
whose campaign staff, advertisements and message have been confused and
muddled. While it is too soon to count out the former parliamentary
speaker, all signs point to a two-horse race heading into the January
poll. Should a second round be necessary, a prospect which is almost
guaranteed, it will likely take place on or around 21 February. 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 19788 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://clevelanduzo.org/pipermail/uzonews_clevelanduzo.org/attachments/20091016/1532b16a/attachment.bin>