Quote: Commenting on the council decision, deputy Roksolana Lemyk said,”We did not intend to target specifically Turgenev Street. We wanted to commemorate UPA heroes by naming in their honor a central street which is frequented by city residents and tourists,” she said.
We have repeatedly declared in the past that the renaming has nothing to do with Turgenev. Anyhow, the Russian writer’s relationship with Lviv is zero: he had never lived here or written about Lviv. Therefore, it made some sense to rename the street. However, the renaming is closely linked to the names of adjacent streets which all carry the names of UPA fighters, Chuprynka, Bandera, Konovalets,” the Lviv deputy argued.
http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2008/04/17/133840
.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Statement by Hillary Clinton on Georgia and Ukraine
I deeply regret President Bush's inability to convince our NATO allies to take this action. This is the first time in memory a U.S. President has traveled to a NATO summit and failed to achieve his publicly proclaimed goals.
Now the Russian government has taken advantage of the lack of unity coming out of the Bucharest Summit to further ratchet up the pressure on young democracies on its borders. Moscow's actions this week to strengthen ties with the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia undermine the territorial integrity of the state of Georgia and are clearly designed to destabilize the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Georgia is a small democratic state in a turbulent region. It must not be allowed to be undermined. Two weeks ago President Bush sat with President Putin in Sochi just a few kilometers away from the Georgian border. He prided himself on his close working relationship with Vladimir Putin. President Bush should call on the Russian leadership to immediately rescind these steps.
I also call on President Bush to immediately send a senior representative to Tbilisi to show our support for the government of Georgia. The United States should raise this matter in the United Nations Security Council, in a special 26+1 session of NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC), and in the NATO-Russia Council. Russia needs to hear a unified message from the United States and our European partners about our shared commitment to Georgia's security and territorial integrity.
These are not the only Russian moves that I have found troubling. Senior Russian officials have engaged in a pressure campaign to prevent Ukraine from seeking deeper ties with NATO. President Putin even raised the prospect of retargeting nuclear missiles against Ukraine.
I am not advocating, nor do I envisage, a return to a new Cold War with Russia, which I believe ought to remain in the G-8, where the United States and its allies can together address our growing list of concerns with Moscow. But the current Administration's mishandling of Russian relations has contributed to Moscow's belief that it can do as it pleases. America and its allies can and must do better.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778263086&start=2
.
Now the Russian government has taken advantage of the lack of unity coming out of the Bucharest Summit to further ratchet up the pressure on young democracies on its borders. Moscow's actions this week to strengthen ties with the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia undermine the territorial integrity of the state of Georgia and are clearly designed to destabilize the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Georgia is a small democratic state in a turbulent region. It must not be allowed to be undermined. Two weeks ago President Bush sat with President Putin in Sochi just a few kilometers away from the Georgian border. He prided himself on his close working relationship with Vladimir Putin. President Bush should call on the Russian leadership to immediately rescind these steps.
I also call on President Bush to immediately send a senior representative to Tbilisi to show our support for the government of Georgia. The United States should raise this matter in the United Nations Security Council, in a special 26+1 session of NATO's North Atlantic Council (NAC), and in the NATO-Russia Council. Russia needs to hear a unified message from the United States and our European partners about our shared commitment to Georgia's security and territorial integrity.
These are not the only Russian moves that I have found troubling. Senior Russian officials have engaged in a pressure campaign to prevent Ukraine from seeking deeper ties with NATO. President Putin even raised the prospect of retargeting nuclear missiles against Ukraine.
I am not advocating, nor do I envisage, a return to a new Cold War with Russia, which I believe ought to remain in the G-8, where the United States and its allies can together address our growing list of concerns with Moscow. But the current Administration's mishandling of Russian relations has contributed to Moscow's belief that it can do as it pleases. America and its allies can and must do better.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778263086&start=2
.
State Reserve Chairman Pozhyvanov Accuses Baloha Of Prevention Cabinet From Stabilization Of Prices On Food Markets
Quote: Chairman of the State Material Reserve Committee Mykhailo Pozhyvanov accuses Head of the Presidential Secretariat Viktor Baloha of prevention the Cabinet of Ministers from stabilization of prices on the food markets of Ukraine.
Pozhyvanov disclosed this in a statement, text of which Ukrainian News has.
"Today, market can provide price reduction for major foodstuffs, but we do not see this, as the head of the Secretariat blocks all Cabinet of Ministers actions in this direction," the report reads.
Pozhyvanov considers it obvious that Baloha concentrated on prevention the government from battling the inflation to retain high prices and discredit activity of the Cabinet of Ministers.
He said that on April 17, he was called by Baloha and threatened with possible problems with law enforcement agencies in the case meat interventions from the state reserve are launched.
"It is a pity that today, person, who heads the Presidential Secretariat, uses semi-criminal threats and interferes in the issues he is not authorized to settle," the state reserve chairman said.
He marked that if the Presidential Secretariat head interferes in activity of the state reserve and disrupts implementation of anti-inflation initiatives of the government, he will be responsible for the inflation but not the president.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/118099.html
.
Pozhyvanov disclosed this in a statement, text of which Ukrainian News has.
"Today, market can provide price reduction for major foodstuffs, but we do not see this, as the head of the Secretariat blocks all Cabinet of Ministers actions in this direction," the report reads.
Pozhyvanov considers it obvious that Baloha concentrated on prevention the government from battling the inflation to retain high prices and discredit activity of the Cabinet of Ministers.
He said that on April 17, he was called by Baloha and threatened with possible problems with law enforcement agencies in the case meat interventions from the state reserve are launched.
"It is a pity that today, person, who heads the Presidential Secretariat, uses semi-criminal threats and interferes in the issues he is not authorized to settle," the state reserve chairman said.
He marked that if the Presidential Secretariat head interferes in activity of the state reserve and disrupts implementation of anti-inflation initiatives of the government, he will be responsible for the inflation but not the president.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/118099.html
.
Orthodox bishop to run for Regions, not Communists
Quote: The head of the Party of the Regions Kyiv city organization Vasyl Horbal announced the “first five” on his political force’s list for the snap Kyiv city council elections. Horbal will head the list that also incude:2. Dmytri Tabchnyk (neo-Soviet historian, proponent of federalism)3. Inna Bogoslovska (formerly of pro-Kuchma, Pinchuk-backed political projects)4. Vladika Pavel (see below)5. Mikhail Reznikovich (on-again-off-again director of the awkwardly-named Lesia Ukrayinka Russian Language Drama Theater, where Tabachnyk’s wife Tetyana Nazarova works as an actress.)Horbal said that some Communists were the source of earlier rumors that the Orthodox Church hierarch was planning to run for the Marxists-Leninists, According to news.liga.net. In the March 2006 elections, the Regions won 16 of 120 seats in Kyiv city council.Recall that Karl Marx stated that “religion is the opiate of the people” and that Lenin’s Bolsheviks spent 70 years pillaging churches, re-opening them as atheist museums and killing million of clergy and laity.His Eminence Pavel (Lebid) is the Archbishop of Vyshgorod (just outside Kyiv) and the Father Superior at the “Holy Dormition Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra,” a.k.a. the Monastery of the Caves, guarded by warrior monks from the Rus Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate).
by Steve Bandera
Source: http://kyivscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/44-orthodox-bishop-to-run-for-regions.html
.
by Steve Bandera
Source: http://kyivscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/44-orthodox-bishop-to-run-for-regions.html
.
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity
Quote: Andrei Illarionov is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. From 2000 to December 2005 he was the chief economic adviser of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Illarionov also served as the president's personal representative (sherpa) in the G-8. He is one of Russia's most forceful and articulate advocates of an open society and democratic capitalism, and has been a long-time friend of the Cato Institute. Illarionov received his Ph.D. from St. Petersburg University in 1987. From 1993 to 1994 Illarionov served as chief economic adviser to the prime minister of the Russian Federation, Viktor Chernomyrdin. He resigned in February 1994 to protest changes in the government's economic policy.
BBC interview video: http://www.cato.org/videohighlights/index.php?highlight_id=22
.
BBC interview video: http://www.cato.org/videohighlights/index.php?highlight_id=22
.
Friday, April 18, 2008
MP says ambitions of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko pose danger to democracy and stability in Ukraine
Quote: "The two key players - Yuschenko and Tymoshenko - in their desire to win sole power in Ukraine and win at the next presidential elections, are threatening the parliamentary system in Ukraine, democracy, political stability, while everyone else is a hostage," he said at a round table in Kyiv on Friday.
He said the current coalition at the Verkhovna Rada was not independent, as almost all of the decisions were made for MPs.
He further said the coalition could not influence "the clever but a little bit haughty" Verkhovna Rada Chairman Arseniy Yatseniuk.
"With further advice from [Presidential Secretariat Head] Viktor Baloha of this sort, Yuschenko will never become either the guarantor of the Constitution or the guarantor of the European choice of Ukraine.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778064688&start=9
.
He said the current coalition at the Verkhovna Rada was not independent, as almost all of the decisions were made for MPs.
He further said the coalition could not influence "the clever but a little bit haughty" Verkhovna Rada Chairman Arseniy Yatseniuk.
"With further advice from [Presidential Secretariat Head] Viktor Baloha of this sort, Yuschenko will never become either the guarantor of the Constitution or the guarantor of the European choice of Ukraine.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778064688&start=9
.
BYuT rating becomes lower, experts say
Quote: This is what Ukrainian sociologist Mykola Churylov said while speaking during a round-table discussion at the Horshenin Institute. He noted that according to the returns of the poll held by the research center "Sotsys" on April2-9 2008, the ByuT rating was only 18,9%.
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=64785
.
http://www.nrcu.gov.ua/index.php?id=148&listid=64785
.
Medvedko Not Aware Of Tsushko's Location
Quote: Prosecutor-General Oleksandr Medvedko claims that he is not aware of current location of Former Interior Affairs Minister and member of the Socialist Party Vasyl Tsushko.
The Prosecutor-General has announced this to reporters in Donetsk.
"I can only say: Tsushko was abroad, where he was treated. Then he came to Moscow," said Medvedko.
As to him, at the moment of bringing charges against him the ex-minister was in Moscow, where an investigator of the Prosecutor-General's Office met with him.
"I confirm, an investigator of the Prosecutor-General's Office indeed met with him in Moscow," said Medvedko.
Although, he refused to disclose details of the meeting of Tsushko and the investigator.
"I shall not make comments until I speak with this investigator. I haven't seen him after his trip to Moscow," added Medvedko.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Prosecutor-General's Office charged ex-Interior Minister Vasyl Tsushko with exceeding his authority as part of the case involving the seizure of the building housing the PGO in May 2007.
According to the PGO, charges against him were brought in Russia.
Later on the Socialist Party press service denied the information that Tsushko is hiding in Russia and told that the ex-minister is undergoing treatment in Germany.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/117991.html
.
The Prosecutor-General has announced this to reporters in Donetsk.
"I can only say: Tsushko was abroad, where he was treated. Then he came to Moscow," said Medvedko.
As to him, at the moment of bringing charges against him the ex-minister was in Moscow, where an investigator of the Prosecutor-General's Office met with him.
"I confirm, an investigator of the Prosecutor-General's Office indeed met with him in Moscow," said Medvedko.
Although, he refused to disclose details of the meeting of Tsushko and the investigator.
"I shall not make comments until I speak with this investigator. I haven't seen him after his trip to Moscow," added Medvedko.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the Prosecutor-General's Office charged ex-Interior Minister Vasyl Tsushko with exceeding his authority as part of the case involving the seizure of the building housing the PGO in May 2007.
According to the PGO, charges against him were brought in Russia.
Later on the Socialist Party press service denied the information that Tsushko is hiding in Russia and told that the ex-minister is undergoing treatment in Germany.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/117991.html
.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
World Shocked! Ukraine below Poverty Line
Quote: According to official statistics, in spite of economical growth of Ukraine in 2000, 28 percents of population live below poverty line. High inflation rate and models of poverty in Ukraine differ from widely-known models in the world. Poverty exists there under conditions of developed industry, highly skilled man power and rather low level of unemployment. “Poverty is rather new phenomenon in Ukraine. It is caused by re-distribution of resources during great changes in country on the way to the market economy”, said Francis O’Donnell.
According to statistical data, Ukrainian nation lost 4 mn of people during previous 10 years, he emphasized. At the same time state medicine financing increased by 4 times during 4 years and use of medicines increased by 3 times. But the death rate only increased in Ukraine. It is concerned with the high level of corruption. The worst situation is registered in the Ukrainian villages. 40 percents of Ukrainians live there.
http://mignews.com.ua/en/articles/299528.html
.
According to statistical data, Ukrainian nation lost 4 mn of people during previous 10 years, he emphasized. At the same time state medicine financing increased by 4 times during 4 years and use of medicines increased by 3 times. But the death rate only increased in Ukraine. It is concerned with the high level of corruption. The worst situation is registered in the Ukrainian villages. 40 percents of Ukrainians live there.
http://mignews.com.ua/en/articles/299528.html
.
Foreign policy: Determined to flex muscles
Quote: Underlying Russia’s policy is the view, widely shared in the Russian elite, that the west exploited Russia’s weakness in the 1990s to push eastwards with the expansion of Nato and the EU – and Moscow got nothing in return. Mr Putin, in the Russian view, tried to establish a partnership in the early 2000s by offering to work with Nato and co-operate in fighting global terrorism. But he was rebuffed. The US abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the cornerstone of cold war security agreements, pressed ahead with further Nato expansion, launched a unilateral war in Iraq and interfered deep inside the former Soviet Union by backing popular revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. Sergei Rogov, the director of the institute of the USA and Canada at the Russian Academy of Sciences, says bluntly: “We are now very close to a new cold war which will not be a repetition of the original cold war since Russia is not a superpower and it will probably never again be a superpower. But it will be a cold war with a very adversarial relationship with an arms race, political zero sum games, economic confrontation and ideological warfare.”
Others are less hawkish. But even among liberal experts there is a sense that Russia should stand up for itself in a way that it did not a few years ago. Andrei Klimov, head of the Duma’s sub-committee on European co-operation, says: “If people want to do with Russia as they wish, it will be a bad mistake.”
Russia has three overriding aims: to be treated with respect by the west; to project its power in the world, particularly through energy policy; and to establish itself as the dominant voice in the former Soviet Union. Andranik Migranyan head of the Kremlin-oriented Russian Public Chamber Commission on Globalisation, National Strategy and Development, says: “Russia is trying to play a more independent role in world politics, especially in energy politics. Will the west accept this or try to push back?”
In practice, Moscow has challenged the US over Iraq, Iran, the Middle East and Kosovo. And it defends the rights of Gazprom, the state-controlled energy giant, and other companies to expand their commercial interests abroad. Arguments over all these issues are likely to continue, despite all the declarations made at Sochi. Russia particularly relishes appearing as the defender of the United Nations and international law in these disputes and portraying the US as a law-breaker, particularly in attacking Iraq and supporting Kosovo’s independence.
However, the main differences between Russia and the west will remain in the former Communist countries. Russia especially resents what it sees as western efforts to prise Ukraine out if its grip. As Sergei Markov, an analyst close to the Kremlin, says: “Ukraine isn’t just another country for us. It’s our red line. Many people ask, ‘is Poland a red line?’ No. The Baltic states? No. Even Georgia? No. But Ukraine, yes. The red line is the pursuit of Nato membership.” Mr Markov denies he is questioning Ukrainian independence.
But, like many Russians, he argues that 1,000 years of history unite Russia and Ukraine.
Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/887f0894-0b6c-11dd-8ccf-0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html
.
Others are less hawkish. But even among liberal experts there is a sense that Russia should stand up for itself in a way that it did not a few years ago. Andrei Klimov, head of the Duma’s sub-committee on European co-operation, says: “If people want to do with Russia as they wish, it will be a bad mistake.”
Russia has three overriding aims: to be treated with respect by the west; to project its power in the world, particularly through energy policy; and to establish itself as the dominant voice in the former Soviet Union. Andranik Migranyan head of the Kremlin-oriented Russian Public Chamber Commission on Globalisation, National Strategy and Development, says: “Russia is trying to play a more independent role in world politics, especially in energy politics. Will the west accept this or try to push back?”
In practice, Moscow has challenged the US over Iraq, Iran, the Middle East and Kosovo. And it defends the rights of Gazprom, the state-controlled energy giant, and other companies to expand their commercial interests abroad. Arguments over all these issues are likely to continue, despite all the declarations made at Sochi. Russia particularly relishes appearing as the defender of the United Nations and international law in these disputes and portraying the US as a law-breaker, particularly in attacking Iraq and supporting Kosovo’s independence.
However, the main differences between Russia and the west will remain in the former Communist countries. Russia especially resents what it sees as western efforts to prise Ukraine out if its grip. As Sergei Markov, an analyst close to the Kremlin, says: “Ukraine isn’t just another country for us. It’s our red line. Many people ask, ‘is Poland a red line?’ No. The Baltic states? No. Even Georgia? No. But Ukraine, yes. The red line is the pursuit of Nato membership.” Mr Markov denies he is questioning Ukrainian independence.
But, like many Russians, he argues that 1,000 years of history unite Russia and Ukraine.
Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/887f0894-0b6c-11dd-8ccf-0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html
.
Ukraine, Russia to hold consultations on consequences of Ukraine's possible NATO accession
Quote: Ukraine and Russia are planning to hold consultations on consequences of Ukraine's possible entry to NATO¸ Foreign Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko told reporters Wednesday.
During his visit to Moscow on April 15, he and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov agreed on holding consultations on NATO issues.
«We've agreed that in the near future, Ukrainian and Russian experts will start consultations to discuss possible concerns, as stated by our Russian partners, concerning Ukraine's participation in NATO,» he said.
As the minister noted, Ukraine will be explaining each item that arouses concerns of the Russian side, proving that it poses no problems or threats to Russia.
Ohryzko said he was satisfied with his visit to Russia.
Among positive moments he pointed out that the Ukrainian delegation managed to convey its position on Ukraine's future accession to the alliance and to state clearly that it brings no threats to Russia.
Earlier, Lavrov told the Echo of Moscow radio that Russia would not admit Ukraine's entry to NATO and confirmed that during the Russia - NATO council meeting in Bucharest (Romania), Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed doubts about Ukraine's future territorial integrity.
Full article: http://weekly.com.ua/?rub=news&from=0&page=0&ncode=1208436899#open_news
.
During his visit to Moscow on April 15, he and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov agreed on holding consultations on NATO issues.
«We've agreed that in the near future, Ukrainian and Russian experts will start consultations to discuss possible concerns, as stated by our Russian partners, concerning Ukraine's participation in NATO,» he said.
As the minister noted, Ukraine will be explaining each item that arouses concerns of the Russian side, proving that it poses no problems or threats to Russia.
Ohryzko said he was satisfied with his visit to Russia.
Among positive moments he pointed out that the Ukrainian delegation managed to convey its position on Ukraine's future accession to the alliance and to state clearly that it brings no threats to Russia.
Earlier, Lavrov told the Echo of Moscow radio that Russia would not admit Ukraine's entry to NATO and confirmed that during the Russia - NATO council meeting in Bucharest (Romania), Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed doubts about Ukraine's future territorial integrity.
Full article: http://weekly.com.ua/?rub=news&from=0&page=0&ncode=1208436899#open_news
.
PGO charges Tsushko of PGO seizure
Quote: The Prosecutor-General's Office (PGO) has charged former Interior Minister Vasyl Tsushko with exceeding his authority as part of the case involving the seizure of the building housing the PGO in May 2007.
«The case involving the events at the Prosecutor-General's Office has practically been concluded. Tsushko has been charged... He is accused of exceeding his authority and interfering in the activities of employees of law enforcement agencies,» Deputy Prosecutor-General Renat Kuzmin told a news briefing.
A PGO investigator went to Russia where the former minister is undergoing treatment. Tsushko was charged there. Kuzmin said the Ukrainian embassy in Russia was assisting in the investigation of the case.
Full article: http://weekly.com.ua/?rub=news&from=0&page=0&ncode=1208436756#open_news
.
«The case involving the events at the Prosecutor-General's Office has practically been concluded. Tsushko has been charged... He is accused of exceeding his authority and interfering in the activities of employees of law enforcement agencies,» Deputy Prosecutor-General Renat Kuzmin told a news briefing.
A PGO investigator went to Russia where the former minister is undergoing treatment. Tsushko was charged there. Kuzmin said the Ukrainian embassy in Russia was assisting in the investigation of the case.
Full article: http://weekly.com.ua/?rub=news&from=0&page=0&ncode=1208436756#open_news
.
Left-wing forces gaining popularity in Ukraine - poll
Quote: If parliamentary elections were held now, 29% of voters would support the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko, 17.6% would support the Party of Regions, the Communist Party and the pro-presidential Our Ukraine- People's Self-Defense bloc would come third with 10% each and the Socialist Party would receive 5.3%, Sagalakov said, citing the results of a public opinion poll held in March 22-29.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:777342827&start=22
.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:777342827&start=22
.
Experts See Possibility For Yuschenko's Second Term As President With Transition To Parliamentary Republic
Quote: Experts of the Situations Modeling Agency see chances for President Viktor Yuschenko to be elected to the post again with amendments to the Constitution introducing the transition to the parliamentary republic in Ukraine.
Ukrainian News learned this from a statement by the Situations Modeling Agency.
"Viktor Yuschenko may become the head of he state for the second time only in the event of the formalization of the post of the president of Ukraine," Agency Deputy Director Oleksii Holobytskyi has said.
In his opinion, the current attempts by the Secretariat of President Yuschenko to narrow the powers of the prime minister without amendments to the Constitution will have reverse effects.
"Leading political parties are interested in the removal of the destabilizing element in the person of the institute of the president," he said.
In the opinion of Holobutskyi, Yuschenko should be interested in the option of the formalization of the post of the president.
"The functional duties of that sort obviously meet the aspirations of Yuschenko the most," he said.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/117607.html
.
Ukrainian News learned this from a statement by the Situations Modeling Agency.
"Viktor Yuschenko may become the head of he state for the second time only in the event of the formalization of the post of the president of Ukraine," Agency Deputy Director Oleksii Holobytskyi has said.
In his opinion, the current attempts by the Secretariat of President Yuschenko to narrow the powers of the prime minister without amendments to the Constitution will have reverse effects.
"Leading political parties are interested in the removal of the destabilizing element in the person of the institute of the president," he said.
In the opinion of Holobutskyi, Yuschenko should be interested in the option of the formalization of the post of the president.
"The functional duties of that sort obviously meet the aspirations of Yuschenko the most," he said.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/117607.html
.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Yushchenko more outstanding than Tymoshenko; Yanukovych pushed into background
Quote: At the weekend, Inter television publicized the outcome of voting on “Big Ukrainians” project, and disclosed the top hundred. Some of those “Big Ukrainians” were present in the television studio: Hero of Ukraine, famous Soviet dissident and person who was one of the initiators of the Ukrainian independence, Levko Lukyanenko [#38], first president of the independent Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk [#51], and leader of the Ukrainian Communist Party Petro Symonenko [#79].
So far it is unclear how exactly positions are distributed among the names in the top ten, and who will head the list of Big Ukrainians. The second tour of voting is taking place. In alphabetical order, the top ten looks as follows:
As for the top hundred, it mostly includes political figures and statesmen. In addition to mentioned-above Khelnytskiy, Yaroslav Mudry, Kravchuk and Lukyanenko, the hundred also includes hetman Ivan Mazepa [#11], the first Ukrainian President Mykhaylo Hrushevskiy [#14], Kyiv Rus Prince Volodymyr the Great [#16], President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko [#20], Pm of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko [#21], Vladimir Lenin [#23], Symon Petrlyura [#26], King Danylo Halytskiy [#34], hetman Pylyp Orlyk [#36], Princess Olga [#43], Victor Yanukovych [#62], Leonid Brezhnev [#63], hetman Dmytro Bayda-Vyshnevetskiy [#97], and others.
The list also includes many cultural figures: writer Mykola Gogol [#18], film director Oleksander Dovzhenko [#22], poetess Lina Kostenko [#25], actor Leonid Bykov [#27], founder of the new Ukrainian literature Ivan Kotlyarevskiy [#27], composer Volodymyr Ivasyuk [#30], opera singer Solomia Krushelnytska [#31], composer Mykola Lysenko [#41], actor Bohdan Stupka [#47], writer Mykhaylo Bulhakov [#49], opera singer Anatoliy Solovyanenko [#55], actor Mykola Hrynko [#59], “golden voice” of Ukraine Nina Matviyenko [#60], artist Illya Ryepin [#65], actress Maria Zankovetska [#66], actor Ivan Mykolaychuk [#67], writer Mykhaylo Kotsyubynskiy [#73], singer Raisa Kyrychenko [#74], singer Nazariy Yaremchuk [#75], theater reformator Les Kurbas [#78], artist Kateryna Bilokur [#84], poetess Olena Teliha [#94], writer Ostap Vyshnya [#96].
The youngest Big Ukrainian is swimmer Yana Klochkova, 25, four-time winner of the Olympic Games. The oldest – Princess Olga, who ruled the Kyiv Rus after her husband was killed.
22 Big Ukrainians are our contemporary. The most outstanding of them are the Klitschko brothers [#15].
http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-246553.html
.
So far it is unclear how exactly positions are distributed among the names in the top ten, and who will head the list of Big Ukrainians. The second tour of voting is taking place. In alphabetical order, the top ten looks as follows:
As for the top hundred, it mostly includes political figures and statesmen. In addition to mentioned-above Khelnytskiy, Yaroslav Mudry, Kravchuk and Lukyanenko, the hundred also includes hetman Ivan Mazepa [#11], the first Ukrainian President Mykhaylo Hrushevskiy [#14], Kyiv Rus Prince Volodymyr the Great [#16], President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko [#20], Pm of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko [#21], Vladimir Lenin [#23], Symon Petrlyura [#26], King Danylo Halytskiy [#34], hetman Pylyp Orlyk [#36], Princess Olga [#43], Victor Yanukovych [#62], Leonid Brezhnev [#63], hetman Dmytro Bayda-Vyshnevetskiy [#97], and others.
The list also includes many cultural figures: writer Mykola Gogol [#18], film director Oleksander Dovzhenko [#22], poetess Lina Kostenko [#25], actor Leonid Bykov [#27], founder of the new Ukrainian literature Ivan Kotlyarevskiy [#27], composer Volodymyr Ivasyuk [#30], opera singer Solomia Krushelnytska [#31], composer Mykola Lysenko [#41], actor Bohdan Stupka [#47], writer Mykhaylo Bulhakov [#49], opera singer Anatoliy Solovyanenko [#55], actor Mykola Hrynko [#59], “golden voice” of Ukraine Nina Matviyenko [#60], artist Illya Ryepin [#65], actress Maria Zankovetska [#66], actor Ivan Mykolaychuk [#67], writer Mykhaylo Kotsyubynskiy [#73], singer Raisa Kyrychenko [#74], singer Nazariy Yaremchuk [#75], theater reformator Les Kurbas [#78], artist Kateryna Bilokur [#84], poetess Olena Teliha [#94], writer Ostap Vyshnya [#96].
The youngest Big Ukrainian is swimmer Yana Klochkova, 25, four-time winner of the Olympic Games. The oldest – Princess Olga, who ruled the Kyiv Rus after her husband was killed.
22 Big Ukrainians are our contemporary. The most outstanding of them are the Klitschko brothers [#15].
http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-246553.html
.
51: Poll shows Chernovetsky with 33%
Quote: Chernovetsky leads race, according to the results of yet another poll released on Friday April 4:
Chernovetsky 31.8%
Klitschko 20.8
Undecided 17
Omelchenko 5.8
Against all 4.8
Lutsenko 3.6
Katerynchuk 3.2
Tomenko 1.4
Turchynov 1.4
Results presented by Nikolai Churylov, director of the “Socis” Center of political and marketing research.
Churylov said that 33.3% of respondents think that Chernovetsky will stay on as mayor, while 20.4% think that Klitschko will win the title.
http://kyivscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/51-poll-shows-chernovetsky-with-33.html
.
Chernovetsky 31.8%
Klitschko 20.8
Undecided 17
Omelchenko 5.8
Against all 4.8
Lutsenko 3.6
Katerynchuk 3.2
Tomenko 1.4
Turchynov 1.4
Results presented by Nikolai Churylov, director of the “Socis” Center of political and marketing research.
Churylov said that 33.3% of respondents think that Chernovetsky will stay on as mayor, while 20.4% think that Klitschko will win the title.
http://kyivscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/51-poll-shows-chernovetsky-with-33.html
.
Russia accused of annexation attempt
Quote: Georgia accused Russia on Wednesday of seeking to annex parts of its territory after Moscow said it would establish official links with the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
David Bakradze, Georgia’s foreign minister, condemned the move as a breach of international law and an “attempt to legalise the de facto annexation process taking place in Abkhazia”.
“We will respond using all diplomatic, legal and political tools,” Mr Bakradze told the Financial Times after an emergency meeting of the Georgian security council. “We will ask for a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council.”
In Brussels on Wednesday, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general, said: “I am deeply concerned by the actions Russia has taken to establish legal links with the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” He noted that Nato allies had reiterated their support for Georgia’s territorial integrity at a recent summit.
“The Russian steps undermine that sovereignty,” he said. “I urge the Russian Federation to reverse these measures, and call on the Georgian authorities to continue to show restraint.”
Moscow’s foreign ministry insisted the move was a peaceful step aimed at lifting restrictions hindering social and economic development in the Caucasus region. Russia was “not choosing [the path of] confrontation with Georgia”, it added.
Earlier, Vladimir Putin, Russian president, signed a decree instructing the government to co-operate with the “de facto” authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in economic, trade and other areas, and to recognise some documents issued by them. It said the foreign ministry should look at providing consular services to the regions’ residents.
Although Russian-Georgian relations had recently improved with the partial lifting of a Russian transport blockade on its southern neighbour, Moscow’s move left the two countries again on a potentially dangerous collision course.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are home to ethnic minorities where separatist movements sprang up in the early 1990s, leading to bloody wars with Georgian forces, ended by uneasy ceasefires. They retain self-declared independence from Georgia, and are run by separatist governments.
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has waged an unsuccessful campaign to re-integrate them since coming to power in the 2003 “Rose” Revolution. He accuses Russia of hindering that process and attempting a “creeping annexation”.
Russia had hinted it might recognise the two regions in response to Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia in February. It has so far stopped short of this. But weeks after Kosovo’s move, it lifted sanctions on Abkhazia that had been agreed by the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1996. Georgia said these mainly related to arms movements, but Russia said they covered broader economic relations.
The Russian foreign ministry characterised Mr Putin’s decree as a logical next step after lifting the sanctions. It said measures for further co-operation would be prepared “in the interests of the social-economic development of these republics, and defending the rights of the populations living in them, including Russian citizens”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c67dda8-0bd8-11dd-9840-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
.
David Bakradze, Georgia’s foreign minister, condemned the move as a breach of international law and an “attempt to legalise the de facto annexation process taking place in Abkhazia”.
“We will respond using all diplomatic, legal and political tools,” Mr Bakradze told the Financial Times after an emergency meeting of the Georgian security council. “We will ask for a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council.”
In Brussels on Wednesday, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general, said: “I am deeply concerned by the actions Russia has taken to establish legal links with the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” He noted that Nato allies had reiterated their support for Georgia’s territorial integrity at a recent summit.
“The Russian steps undermine that sovereignty,” he said. “I urge the Russian Federation to reverse these measures, and call on the Georgian authorities to continue to show restraint.”
Moscow’s foreign ministry insisted the move was a peaceful step aimed at lifting restrictions hindering social and economic development in the Caucasus region. Russia was “not choosing [the path of] confrontation with Georgia”, it added.
Earlier, Vladimir Putin, Russian president, signed a decree instructing the government to co-operate with the “de facto” authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in economic, trade and other areas, and to recognise some documents issued by them. It said the foreign ministry should look at providing consular services to the regions’ residents.
Although Russian-Georgian relations had recently improved with the partial lifting of a Russian transport blockade on its southern neighbour, Moscow’s move left the two countries again on a potentially dangerous collision course.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are home to ethnic minorities where separatist movements sprang up in the early 1990s, leading to bloody wars with Georgian forces, ended by uneasy ceasefires. They retain self-declared independence from Georgia, and are run by separatist governments.
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has waged an unsuccessful campaign to re-integrate them since coming to power in the 2003 “Rose” Revolution. He accuses Russia of hindering that process and attempting a “creeping annexation”.
Russia had hinted it might recognise the two regions in response to Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia in February. It has so far stopped short of this. But weeks after Kosovo’s move, it lifted sanctions on Abkhazia that had been agreed by the Commonwealth of Independent States in 1996. Georgia said these mainly related to arms movements, but Russia said they covered broader economic relations.
The Russian foreign ministry characterised Mr Putin’s decree as a logical next step after lifting the sanctions. It said measures for further co-operation would be prepared “in the interests of the social-economic development of these republics, and defending the rights of the populations living in them, including Russian citizens”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c67dda8-0bd8-11dd-9840-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
.
Putin’s father fought for Nazis: Suvorov
Quote: In 2003, Polish media reported that KGB defector Victor Suvorov (Vladimir Rizun) found documents and pictures in London which show that the Russian president’s father served in the Nazi-collaborating army led by Russian general Vlasov. Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin was apparently captured by British forces, but not before he helped crush the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943. (In the photo above, Putin’s father is identified as the man on the far left.)http://kyivscoop.blogspot.com/2008/04/putins-father-fought-for-nazis-suvorov.html
Also: http://siteground239.com/~ukrainee/forum/index.php?topic=850.new#top
.
Ukraine, Russia To Launch Consultations On Withdrawal Of Russian Black Sea Fleet From Crimea June 1
Quote: From June 1, 2008, Ukraine and Russia will launch consultation on order and mechanism of withdrawal of Russian Black Sea fleet from Crimea.
Foreign Affairs Ministry press service head Vasyl Kyrylych disclosed this to the press.
He also said that on April 15, Foreign Affairs Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko handed over the memo "On stages and order of withdrawal of Russian Black Sea fleet from Crimea by May 28, 2017" to his Russian colleague Sergey Lavrov.
"The memo foresees that from June 1 we will have to launch consultation on order, determination of mechanism and procedure of withdrawal of Russian Black Sea fleet from the territory of Ukraine," he said.
Kyrylych also said that the text of the memo is not published, as it is being currently elaborated.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin has doubts that Ukraine may cancel agreement on deployment of Russian Black Sea fleet in Crimea.
Earlier, the Ukrainian People's Party had called on President Viktor Yuschenko, Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers to revise agreement with Russia on status and conditions of deployment of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea.
At the same time, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko opposes Ukraine's unilateral initiative on revision of the fleet deployment in Crimea.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/117332.html
Foreign Affairs Ministry press service head Vasyl Kyrylych disclosed this to the press.
He also said that on April 15, Foreign Affairs Minister Volodymyr Ohryzko handed over the memo "On stages and order of withdrawal of Russian Black Sea fleet from Crimea by May 28, 2017" to his Russian colleague Sergey Lavrov.
"The memo foresees that from June 1 we will have to launch consultation on order, determination of mechanism and procedure of withdrawal of Russian Black Sea fleet from the territory of Ukraine," he said.
Kyrylych also said that the text of the memo is not published, as it is being currently elaborated.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin has doubts that Ukraine may cancel agreement on deployment of Russian Black Sea fleet in Crimea.
Earlier, the Ukrainian People's Party had called on President Viktor Yuschenko, Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers to revise agreement with Russia on status and conditions of deployment of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea.
At the same time, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko opposes Ukraine's unilateral initiative on revision of the fleet deployment in Crimea.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/117332.html
Analysis: Russia prepares for lengthy battle over Ukraine
Quote: Russia`s pro-Kremlin mass media lauded the recent NATO decision in Bucharest to delay issuing Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and Georgia, hailing it as a victory for departing President Vladimir Putin.
However, many serious pundits in Russia have been less smug. They appear to regard the objections formulated by Germany and France as temporary obstacles and think that NATO remains bent on including Kyiv and Tbilisi around its table. Ukraine is of particular concern, because, as the emerging neo-nationalist ideology in Russia argues, without that country, Moscow cannot restore its status as "the center of power in Eurasia."
"NATO membership for Ukraine means death for Russia," nationalist publisher Aleksandr Prokhanov has said.
At the same time, Russia`s ruling elite is acutely aware of its significant geoeconomic interests in Ukraine, particularly since Ukraine and Belarus are the main conduits for Russian hydrocarbon exports to Western Europe.
Finally, Putin has a personal stake in the outcome. During Ukraine`s 2004-05 Orange Revolution, Putin personally intervened on the side of then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who led the "anti-Orange" camp. The failure of that heavy-handed intervention was presented around the world, including in Russia and Ukraine, as a major foreign-policy fiasco for Moscow. Media reports at the time indicated that the failed effort in Ukraine was coordinated by Putin`s then chief of staff, Dmitry Medvedev.
Russian analysts realize that support in the United States for Ukraine`s eventual NATO membership is not limited to the George W. Bush administration. It has bipartisan backing in both houses of the U.S. Congress, both of which this year passed resolutions of support. Russian media have noted that all the remaining U.S. presidential candidates -- Senators John McCain (Republican, Arizona), Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York), and Barak Obama (Democrat, Illinois) -- support NATO membership for both Ukraine and Georgia. Obama was an initiator of the corresponding resolution in the Senate.
In addition, the concluding document of the NATO summit in Bucharest, which was endorsed by all NATO members of both "old" and "new" Europe, clearly states that Ukraine and Georgia should become members of the alliance.
Russian pundits have also noted with concern that, although a majority of Ukrainians still opposes NATO membership, that majority is slipping. The pro-Kremlin news agency RosBalt earlier this month published research that indicates the percentage of Ukrainians actively opposing membership has fallen from 70 percent to 35 percent in the last two years. Other research indicates that 60 percent of Ukrainians oppose joining NATO while 40 percent favor membership.
Moreover, the Ukrainian government is working to continue turning this tide. President Viktor Yushchenko told Germany`s ZDF television recently that he thinks the percentages can be reversed within two years. Yushchenko`s belief is well-founded, as the country`s political elite -- with the exception of left-leaning parties -- is solidly pro-NATO and Ukrainian media -- which, unlike Russia`s, are genuinely independent -- broadly support membership.
Observers in Moscow have also expressed concern that the traditionally pro-Russian elements in Ukraine have been antagonized by the recent gas wars and various other clumsy efforts initiated by Moscow. In October, for instance, the pro-Kremlin Eurasian Youth Movement (ESM) entered Ukraine and vandalized some state symbols at the summit of the country`s highest peak.
The protest outraged the Ukrainian authorities and public opinion, especially after press reports suggested that the instigator of the action was International Eurasian Movement leader Aleksandr Dugin. The ESM is part of Dugin`s umbrella organization. In the wake of the scandal, Putin fired Modest Kolerov, the head of the presidential-administration department in charge of ties with CIS countries who had enlisted Dugin as an adviser.
Pro-Kremlin propagandists also emphasize the idea of a "military threat" from the alliance, even though some of Russia`s top defense officials are skeptical of such a threat. First Deputy Prime Minister and former Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, for instance, said in April 2007 that Russia faces no military danger on its Western borders, saying that the real potential danger lies in the Far East and the Pacific region.
"It is true," Ivanov said, "that we have NATO [in the west], but we have acceptable relations with it and a system of treaties and mechanisms has been established." This assessment, made during a speech in Vladivostok, went little noticed by the central mass media. As a result, a significant segment of Russian public opinion is convinced the Western alliance presents a military threat to Russia.
Full article: http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-246720.html
.
However, many serious pundits in Russia have been less smug. They appear to regard the objections formulated by Germany and France as temporary obstacles and think that NATO remains bent on including Kyiv and Tbilisi around its table. Ukraine is of particular concern, because, as the emerging neo-nationalist ideology in Russia argues, without that country, Moscow cannot restore its status as "the center of power in Eurasia."
"NATO membership for Ukraine means death for Russia," nationalist publisher Aleksandr Prokhanov has said.
At the same time, Russia`s ruling elite is acutely aware of its significant geoeconomic interests in Ukraine, particularly since Ukraine and Belarus are the main conduits for Russian hydrocarbon exports to Western Europe.
Finally, Putin has a personal stake in the outcome. During Ukraine`s 2004-05 Orange Revolution, Putin personally intervened on the side of then-Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who led the "anti-Orange" camp. The failure of that heavy-handed intervention was presented around the world, including in Russia and Ukraine, as a major foreign-policy fiasco for Moscow. Media reports at the time indicated that the failed effort in Ukraine was coordinated by Putin`s then chief of staff, Dmitry Medvedev.
Russian analysts realize that support in the United States for Ukraine`s eventual NATO membership is not limited to the George W. Bush administration. It has bipartisan backing in both houses of the U.S. Congress, both of which this year passed resolutions of support. Russian media have noted that all the remaining U.S. presidential candidates -- Senators John McCain (Republican, Arizona), Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York), and Barak Obama (Democrat, Illinois) -- support NATO membership for both Ukraine and Georgia. Obama was an initiator of the corresponding resolution in the Senate.
In addition, the concluding document of the NATO summit in Bucharest, which was endorsed by all NATO members of both "old" and "new" Europe, clearly states that Ukraine and Georgia should become members of the alliance.
Russian pundits have also noted with concern that, although a majority of Ukrainians still opposes NATO membership, that majority is slipping. The pro-Kremlin news agency RosBalt earlier this month published research that indicates the percentage of Ukrainians actively opposing membership has fallen from 70 percent to 35 percent in the last two years. Other research indicates that 60 percent of Ukrainians oppose joining NATO while 40 percent favor membership.
Moreover, the Ukrainian government is working to continue turning this tide. President Viktor Yushchenko told Germany`s ZDF television recently that he thinks the percentages can be reversed within two years. Yushchenko`s belief is well-founded, as the country`s political elite -- with the exception of left-leaning parties -- is solidly pro-NATO and Ukrainian media -- which, unlike Russia`s, are genuinely independent -- broadly support membership.
Observers in Moscow have also expressed concern that the traditionally pro-Russian elements in Ukraine have been antagonized by the recent gas wars and various other clumsy efforts initiated by Moscow. In October, for instance, the pro-Kremlin Eurasian Youth Movement (ESM) entered Ukraine and vandalized some state symbols at the summit of the country`s highest peak.
The protest outraged the Ukrainian authorities and public opinion, especially after press reports suggested that the instigator of the action was International Eurasian Movement leader Aleksandr Dugin. The ESM is part of Dugin`s umbrella organization. In the wake of the scandal, Putin fired Modest Kolerov, the head of the presidential-administration department in charge of ties with CIS countries who had enlisted Dugin as an adviser.
Pro-Kremlin propagandists also emphasize the idea of a "military threat" from the alliance, even though some of Russia`s top defense officials are skeptical of such a threat. First Deputy Prime Minister and former Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, for instance, said in April 2007 that Russia faces no military danger on its Western borders, saying that the real potential danger lies in the Far East and the Pacific region.
"It is true," Ivanov said, "that we have NATO [in the west], but we have acceptable relations with it and a system of treaties and mechanisms has been established." This assessment, made during a speech in Vladivostok, went little noticed by the central mass media. As a result, a significant segment of Russian public opinion is convinced the Western alliance presents a military threat to Russia.
Full article: http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-246720.html
.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Kremlin’s New Strategy: Gazprom versus NATO?
Quote: Russian politicians are forgetting to look ahead and instead, they completely ignore economic consequences as they focus on their political motivations. Russian merger Gazprom is a state-owned enterprise; all decisions made by the Parliament and government are to be fulfilled even if they contradict the economic profitability policy of the merger. However, imposing actual economic sanctions on politically unstable consumers is not only due to the merger, and more due to the boosting of production efficiency at local facilities and envisaging further business promotion and profitable projects for the international markets. Nevertheles, it should take into account that the Kremlin power has been targeted by Gazprom’s political lobby led by Dmytry Medvedev and the merger is to be become a very decisive instrument for pursuing foreign policy strategic goals. At a time being, GAZPROM is performing gas delivery on the following acceptable routes:
Russia-Ukraine-Slovakia-Czech Republic-Germany-France
Russia-Ukraine-Hungary-Austria Russia-Turkey-Serbia-Hungary-Austria (“Blue Stream-1” and “Blue Stream-2”)
Russia-Georgia-Turkey
Russia-China
Russia-Germany (“Nord Stream”)
The merger has to follow-up the Kremlin’s vision on global political engagement. It was reflected with regard to the NATO Bucharest Summit when some Allies declined MAP granting to Georgia and Ukraine. As it was said many times, dependence of some Western European nations on Russia energy supplies has become the decisive factor for why MAP was denied to these two countries. But, what is the concrete energy dependency factor for Euro-Atlantic cohesion? .
In May 2005, Germany and Russia signed a special agreement to build and launch a new more massive gas pipeline project from St. Petersburg to near the German Hamburg port. The project aims at widening Russia’s economic as well as political presence in the European continent and increasing its leverage in the EU. Germany, under leadership of Shredder and now under leadership of Merkel has been seeking to become a key provider of such interests of its “new ally” as ex-State Chancellor once claimed. The gas pipeline via the Baltic seabed will become the fourth energy corridor supplying Russian energy resources to Western Europe. It could be seen as the last political gift from Gerhard Shredder to his close friend Vladimir Putin, before he lost the battle to Christian Democrat Union’s leader Mrs. Merkel. Despite harsh pessimistic predictions, she gained full support for the project, although it changed national foreign political attitudes toward incumbent Russia's regime. Even though being a new project, it will face being ruined during the political stage of implementation. Russia perceived this change and is forcing moving ahead and pushing for the European context. Namely, President Putin’s visit to Finland in August of 2005 was determined by the willingness of Russia to pursue two main purposes:
persuading the Finish government, as a transit nation in aegis of the project, to pipe out the gas and take an active role in fostering the project towards Germany new government;
As a forthcoming chairman in the EU, Russia aimed to boost the project’s capability and improve the political grounds at the entire European level.
Actually, Putin’s lobbying effort has not been concluded and is still underway. It seems that cautious Finns partially agreed to this undertaking, hoping to gain great profits. However, Russia’s increasing political influence seems less attractive for Finland as well as for the other EU nations, including Germany. The project is estimated to cost at least US$4 billion and Russia will utilize those technological achievements and investment planning mechanisms used for a similar project in the Black Sea, the Turkish Blue Stream gas pipeline. That project has reaped many positives for Russia and the Kremlin expects the same for the Northern gas project. If successful, it will reinforce by and large Russia’s energy monopoly in the European market. Russia earns more than $10 billion annually by transporting gas to Europe, almost 30% of the state budget, therefore, increasing the supply will increase those benefits and the Gazprom merger could become the most powerful corporation not only in Europe, but also in the whole world.
Initially, the pipeline will have one strand, capable of pumping 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas, to be joined in time by a second strand, which will double that capacity. Even more, Gazprom launched a website, http://www.negp.ru, which will update users about the pipeline project. In this regard, many European nations express concern about this international deal and are dissatisfied with the decision of the German government.
The 1.089 km pipeline is set to run from Wyborg near St. Petersburg to Greifswald in Germany. The four billion dollar European pipeline is to be built by Gazprom, which holds a 51 percent stake and German companies "BASF" and "E.ON". Gas is due to begin flowing through the pipeline in 2010. A special operator company "North European Gas Pipeline Company" (NEGPC) was set up to run the project with chairmanship of Gerhard Shredder. Russia already supplies 47% of Germany's natural gas and the pipeline, with an annual capacity of 55 bcm., will be capable of meeting the other half of German needs. The pipeline, more than 1.200 kilometers long, upon its birth, has been hailed by the EU. Willingness to take part in further development of the project has been expressed by Belgium, UK and Holland. Moreover, the Dutch company "Gasuine" proposed utilizing the gas pipeline’s net "Bangzand Baction Line", operative since 1997, to supply further Russian gas via the NEGP to Netherlands, Belgium - where a massive gas depot is to be built (with Gazprom's involvement) equal to that of the Ukrainian one, with an average 7 trillion cubic meter storage capacity- and the UK as well as provide further delivery to Sweden and Finland. Furthermore, it is expected to deliver Russian gas to the USA and Canada via liquefied natural gas (LNG). Although, some concrete suspicions have spurred regarding two key factors:
Full article: http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=10264
.
Russia-Ukraine-Slovakia-Czech Republic-Germany-France
Russia-Ukraine-Hungary-Austria Russia-Turkey-Serbia-Hungary-Austria (“Blue Stream-1” and “Blue Stream-2”)
Russia-Georgia-Turkey
Russia-China
Russia-Germany (“Nord Stream”)
The merger has to follow-up the Kremlin’s vision on global political engagement. It was reflected with regard to the NATO Bucharest Summit when some Allies declined MAP granting to Georgia and Ukraine. As it was said many times, dependence of some Western European nations on Russia energy supplies has become the decisive factor for why MAP was denied to these two countries. But, what is the concrete energy dependency factor for Euro-Atlantic cohesion? .
In May 2005, Germany and Russia signed a special agreement to build and launch a new more massive gas pipeline project from St. Petersburg to near the German Hamburg port. The project aims at widening Russia’s economic as well as political presence in the European continent and increasing its leverage in the EU. Germany, under leadership of Shredder and now under leadership of Merkel has been seeking to become a key provider of such interests of its “new ally” as ex-State Chancellor once claimed. The gas pipeline via the Baltic seabed will become the fourth energy corridor supplying Russian energy resources to Western Europe. It could be seen as the last political gift from Gerhard Shredder to his close friend Vladimir Putin, before he lost the battle to Christian Democrat Union’s leader Mrs. Merkel. Despite harsh pessimistic predictions, she gained full support for the project, although it changed national foreign political attitudes toward incumbent Russia's regime. Even though being a new project, it will face being ruined during the political stage of implementation. Russia perceived this change and is forcing moving ahead and pushing for the European context. Namely, President Putin’s visit to Finland in August of 2005 was determined by the willingness of Russia to pursue two main purposes:
persuading the Finish government, as a transit nation in aegis of the project, to pipe out the gas and take an active role in fostering the project towards Germany new government;
As a forthcoming chairman in the EU, Russia aimed to boost the project’s capability and improve the political grounds at the entire European level.
Actually, Putin’s lobbying effort has not been concluded and is still underway. It seems that cautious Finns partially agreed to this undertaking, hoping to gain great profits. However, Russia’s increasing political influence seems less attractive for Finland as well as for the other EU nations, including Germany. The project is estimated to cost at least US$4 billion and Russia will utilize those technological achievements and investment planning mechanisms used for a similar project in the Black Sea, the Turkish Blue Stream gas pipeline. That project has reaped many positives for Russia and the Kremlin expects the same for the Northern gas project. If successful, it will reinforce by and large Russia’s energy monopoly in the European market. Russia earns more than $10 billion annually by transporting gas to Europe, almost 30% of the state budget, therefore, increasing the supply will increase those benefits and the Gazprom merger could become the most powerful corporation not only in Europe, but also in the whole world.
Initially, the pipeline will have one strand, capable of pumping 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas, to be joined in time by a second strand, which will double that capacity. Even more, Gazprom launched a website, http://www.negp.ru, which will update users about the pipeline project. In this regard, many European nations express concern about this international deal and are dissatisfied with the decision of the German government.
The 1.089 km pipeline is set to run from Wyborg near St. Petersburg to Greifswald in Germany. The four billion dollar European pipeline is to be built by Gazprom, which holds a 51 percent stake and German companies "BASF" and "E.ON". Gas is due to begin flowing through the pipeline in 2010. A special operator company "North European Gas Pipeline Company" (NEGPC) was set up to run the project with chairmanship of Gerhard Shredder. Russia already supplies 47% of Germany's natural gas and the pipeline, with an annual capacity of 55 bcm., will be capable of meeting the other half of German needs. The pipeline, more than 1.200 kilometers long, upon its birth, has been hailed by the EU. Willingness to take part in further development of the project has been expressed by Belgium, UK and Holland. Moreover, the Dutch company "Gasuine" proposed utilizing the gas pipeline’s net "Bangzand Baction Line", operative since 1997, to supply further Russian gas via the NEGP to Netherlands, Belgium - where a massive gas depot is to be built (with Gazprom's involvement) equal to that of the Ukrainian one, with an average 7 trillion cubic meter storage capacity- and the UK as well as provide further delivery to Sweden and Finland. Furthermore, it is expected to deliver Russian gas to the USA and Canada via liquefied natural gas (LNG). Although, some concrete suspicions have spurred regarding two key factors:
Full article: http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=10264
.
Lavrov assures Kiev that Putin respects Ukraine's sovereignty
Quote: Russia's top diplomat gave assurances on Tuesday that in a recent speech to NATO leaders, President Vladimir Putin did not seek to undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine.
During the April 2-4 Bucharest summit, Putin gave a closed-door speech to NATO leaders, which reportedly focused on Russian opposition to some NATO members' plans to admit Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance.
"I am convinced that all those who attended the Russia-NATO Council session in Bucharest and then attempted to give Ukraine their interpretation of what the Russian president said, did so with ill intent. The Russian president said nothing that would infringe on Ukraine's sovereignty," Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after talks with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Ohryzko.
Around the time of the summit, media speculated over a possible deal between the Kremlin and Washington, under which Moscow would tolerate a missile shield in Central Europe in exchange for NATO allowing Georgia and Ukraine to fall back into Moscow's sphere of influence. Just before the summit, Bush rejected such rumors.
At the summit, NATO powers refused to admit Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance's Membership Action Plan, despite Bush's strong support of the countries' bids. The rejection was seen as a response to Putin's threat, made last year, to target missiles at Ukraine if Kiev joins NATO.
Last week, Lavrov reiterated that Russia would do everything possible to prevent Ukraine and Georgia from being admitted to NATO.
In reaction to Moscow's statements on the issue, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry demanded last Saturday that Russian authorities "stop the practice of threats" against Kiev, saying: "Statements by high-ranking Russian officials are anti-Ukrainian... and constitute direct interference in Ukraine's internal affairs."
Full article: http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/757/2/lang,en/
.
During the April 2-4 Bucharest summit, Putin gave a closed-door speech to NATO leaders, which reportedly focused on Russian opposition to some NATO members' plans to admit Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance.
"I am convinced that all those who attended the Russia-NATO Council session in Bucharest and then attempted to give Ukraine their interpretation of what the Russian president said, did so with ill intent. The Russian president said nothing that would infringe on Ukraine's sovereignty," Sergei Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after talks with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Ohryzko.
Around the time of the summit, media speculated over a possible deal between the Kremlin and Washington, under which Moscow would tolerate a missile shield in Central Europe in exchange for NATO allowing Georgia and Ukraine to fall back into Moscow's sphere of influence. Just before the summit, Bush rejected such rumors.
At the summit, NATO powers refused to admit Georgia and Ukraine to the alliance's Membership Action Plan, despite Bush's strong support of the countries' bids. The rejection was seen as a response to Putin's threat, made last year, to target missiles at Ukraine if Kiev joins NATO.
Last week, Lavrov reiterated that Russia would do everything possible to prevent Ukraine and Georgia from being admitted to NATO.
In reaction to Moscow's statements on the issue, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry demanded last Saturday that Russian authorities "stop the practice of threats" against Kiev, saying: "Statements by high-ranking Russian officials are anti-Ukrainian... and constitute direct interference in Ukraine's internal affairs."
Full article: http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/757/2/lang,en/
.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Ukraine heads for more tension with Moscow
Quote: Ukraine is likely to be in a position to block Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organisation later this year, giving it significant leverage that it could use in natural gas supply talks or in retaliation over Moscow’s opposition to plans by Ukraine and Georgia to join Nato.
Ukraine’s parliament last week passed the final legislation needed for the country formally to join the trade body within weeks – enabling it then to join the working group handling Russia’s membership bid. President Viktor Yushchenko is expected to sign the ratification this week and notify the WTO’s Geneva headquarters, paving the way for Ukraine to join 30 days later.
Ukraine is not likely to be the only working group member with tough demands for Moscow. But its presence could strain already tense relations between the countries.
Moscow has imposed numerous trade restrictions on Ukrainian goods, notably metals and dairy products, and sharply raised natural gas prices for Kiev since the country’s foreign policy shifted westwards after the Orange revolution of 2004.
Oleksandr Shlapak, deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said Kiev would certainly exercise its right to join the working group. “We want to discuss our future trade relations with our partners, and we have a right to this,” he said.
Valery Piatnitsky, Ukraine’s deputy economy minister and head of the country’s WTO delegation, said Kiev would attempt to lift Russian restrictions on Ukrainian goods. But a “political decision” would have to be made on how far Ukraine pursued its demands, for example in seeking leverage to reduce energy price increases.
“We will be able to raise any questions, just as Georgia is doing today. We will have the same powers, but this does not mean we will use them,” he said. “We will certainly seek to remove all trade restrictions on Ukrainian goods ... But if certain issues have already been raised by other countries in the working group, there is no reason for us to raise them.”
Maxim Medvedkov, Russia’s chief WTO negotiator, said Russia was “calm” about the prospect of negotiations with Ukraine, and ready to conduct them “within the framework of this international organisation”.
“Any WTO member has the right to begin negotiations with a country which is joining. Our task is to find a common language with our partners and agree. But what questions there will be from our Ukrainian colleagues, we don’t know,” Mr Medvedkov added, noting that Kiev was sending “very contradictory signals”.
But any delay caused by having to agree with Ukraine could come as a blow after Moscow officials said WTO accession could happen within months....
Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84748c90-0a79-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html
.
Ukraine’s parliament last week passed the final legislation needed for the country formally to join the trade body within weeks – enabling it then to join the working group handling Russia’s membership bid. President Viktor Yushchenko is expected to sign the ratification this week and notify the WTO’s Geneva headquarters, paving the way for Ukraine to join 30 days later.
Ukraine is not likely to be the only working group member with tough demands for Moscow. But its presence could strain already tense relations between the countries.
Moscow has imposed numerous trade restrictions on Ukrainian goods, notably metals and dairy products, and sharply raised natural gas prices for Kiev since the country’s foreign policy shifted westwards after the Orange revolution of 2004.
Oleksandr Shlapak, deputy head of Ukraine’s presidential office, said Kiev would certainly exercise its right to join the working group. “We want to discuss our future trade relations with our partners, and we have a right to this,” he said.
Valery Piatnitsky, Ukraine’s deputy economy minister and head of the country’s WTO delegation, said Kiev would attempt to lift Russian restrictions on Ukrainian goods. But a “political decision” would have to be made on how far Ukraine pursued its demands, for example in seeking leverage to reduce energy price increases.
“We will be able to raise any questions, just as Georgia is doing today. We will have the same powers, but this does not mean we will use them,” he said. “We will certainly seek to remove all trade restrictions on Ukrainian goods ... But if certain issues have already been raised by other countries in the working group, there is no reason for us to raise them.”
Maxim Medvedkov, Russia’s chief WTO negotiator, said Russia was “calm” about the prospect of negotiations with Ukraine, and ready to conduct them “within the framework of this international organisation”.
“Any WTO member has the right to begin negotiations with a country which is joining. Our task is to find a common language with our partners and agree. But what questions there will be from our Ukrainian colleagues, we don’t know,” Mr Medvedkov added, noting that Kiev was sending “very contradictory signals”.
But any delay caused by having to agree with Ukraine could come as a blow after Moscow officials said WTO accession could happen within months....
Full article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/84748c90-0a79-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html
.
Tymoshenko's bloc might disrupt coalition by voting for creation of constitution commission at Rada, Our Ukraine - People's Self-Defense
Quote: bloc faction leader says People's Self-Defense bloc faction hopes that on Tuesday their partners in the coalition - the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko - won't support the creation of the special parliamentary commission for amendments to the Constitution, Our Ukraine - People's Self-Defense Bloc faction leader Viacheslav Kyrylenko said on Monday.
He said the faction had organized the first general meeting of the coalition to save the coalition.
"It will be saved if the faction of the BYT doesn't vote for a draft resolution on the creation of the special commission for amendments to the Constitution together with the Regions Party and the Communist Party of Ukraine," he said.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:775426874&start=6
.
He said the faction had organized the first general meeting of the coalition to save the coalition.
"It will be saved if the faction of the BYT doesn't vote for a draft resolution on the creation of the special commission for amendments to the Constitution together with the Regions Party and the Communist Party of Ukraine," he said.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:775426874&start=6
.
MOSCOW IS REPEATING THE BALTIC ERROR; Baluyevsky is pushing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO
Quote:
Russia's attitude to the NATO membership aspirations of its neighbors; If Russia wishes to delay NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, it should withdraw its threats and change its tone. It should call on Kiev and Tbilisi to expand cooperation in the areas where this is possible, and discuss disputed issues without any excess publicity.
Moscow is continuing to send contradictory messages to NATO, Ukraine, and Georgia in relation to the NATO membership aspirations of these two countries. Assurances that Russia will not permit relations with these countries to deteriorate are interspersed with threats and supplemented with silence on questions that require public explanations (such as leaks about the possibility of taking away the Crimea). Chief of the General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky made a controversial statement on Friday, April 11: promising that if Kiev and Tbilisi join NATO, Russia would take "not only military measures," but also "measures of another nature." This has intrigued half the world, but Baluyevsky didn't go into details.
Moscow is giving its opponents more and more pretexts to accuse it of behaving in a militant manner and disrespecting its nearest neighbors. In point of fact, Baluyevsky and whoever writes his lines ought to take a few aspects of the situation into account.
Firstly, the fears raised by Baluyevsky and other proponents of hysteria in relation to Ukraine and Georgia aren't necessarily prevalent in Russian society. Secondly, the promises of military and other measures, generating associations of intensified confrontation, contradict Russia's simultaneous messages to the effect that relations must not be permitted to deteriorate. This provides a pretext for saying that Moscow's policy in an important area of foreign affairs is inconsistent. Thirdly, demonstrating a militant approach to issues that are still being dealt with at the level of politics and diplomacy complicates Russia's relations with its neighbors and NATO (and an even broader circle of countries, given rising apprehensions). Fourthly, a harsh tone from Russia facilitates consolidation among political forces and the public in Ukraine and Georgia, lending strength to proponents of NATO membership.
When we approached NATO Headquarters for comments about Baluyevsky's statements, we were told that "NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is only a matter of time," and that "the choices made by Kiev and Tbilisi have nothing to do with any other countries."
NATO is waiting for Moscow to explain what kind of measures it intends to take. As at April 13, no public explanations had been provided. Neither was there any confirmation or denial of media reports that President Putin, speaking at the NATO summit in Bucharest, had questioned Ukrainian statehood and threatened to annex the Crimea. It's worth noting that under the current Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership Treaty between Moscow and Kiev, both sides undertake to develop "bilateral relations based on the principles of mutual respect, sovereign equality, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, peaceful conflict resolution, non-use of force or threats of force..."
Full article: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:775465125&start=4
.
Russia's attitude to the NATO membership aspirations of its neighbors; If Russia wishes to delay NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, it should withdraw its threats and change its tone. It should call on Kiev and Tbilisi to expand cooperation in the areas where this is possible, and discuss disputed issues without any excess publicity.
Moscow is continuing to send contradictory messages to NATO, Ukraine, and Georgia in relation to the NATO membership aspirations of these two countries. Assurances that Russia will not permit relations with these countries to deteriorate are interspersed with threats and supplemented with silence on questions that require public explanations (such as leaks about the possibility of taking away the Crimea). Chief of the General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky made a controversial statement on Friday, April 11: promising that if Kiev and Tbilisi join NATO, Russia would take "not only military measures," but also "measures of another nature." This has intrigued half the world, but Baluyevsky didn't go into details.
Moscow is giving its opponents more and more pretexts to accuse it of behaving in a militant manner and disrespecting its nearest neighbors. In point of fact, Baluyevsky and whoever writes his lines ought to take a few aspects of the situation into account.
Firstly, the fears raised by Baluyevsky and other proponents of hysteria in relation to Ukraine and Georgia aren't necessarily prevalent in Russian society. Secondly, the promises of military and other measures, generating associations of intensified confrontation, contradict Russia's simultaneous messages to the effect that relations must not be permitted to deteriorate. This provides a pretext for saying that Moscow's policy in an important area of foreign affairs is inconsistent. Thirdly, demonstrating a militant approach to issues that are still being dealt with at the level of politics and diplomacy complicates Russia's relations with its neighbors and NATO (and an even broader circle of countries, given rising apprehensions). Fourthly, a harsh tone from Russia facilitates consolidation among political forces and the public in Ukraine and Georgia, lending strength to proponents of NATO membership.
When we approached NATO Headquarters for comments about Baluyevsky's statements, we were told that "NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is only a matter of time," and that "the choices made by Kiev and Tbilisi have nothing to do with any other countries."
NATO is waiting for Moscow to explain what kind of measures it intends to take. As at April 13, no public explanations had been provided. Neither was there any confirmation or denial of media reports that President Putin, speaking at the NATO summit in Bucharest, had questioned Ukrainian statehood and threatened to annex the Crimea. It's worth noting that under the current Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership Treaty between Moscow and Kiev, both sides undertake to develop "bilateral relations based on the principles of mutual respect, sovereign equality, territorial integrity, inviolability of borders, peaceful conflict resolution, non-use of force or threats of force..."
Full article: http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:775465125&start=4
.
Ukraine’s WTO entry not to affect gas ties with Russia
Quote: Ratification by the Ukrainian parliament of a law on Ukraine’s entry into the WTO means that in one month the country will be a full member of the World Trade Organization. How will this affect Ukraine’s gas relations with Russia?
Russian experts do not expect Ukraine’s WTO entry to have any significant impact on its ties with Russia in terms of fuel supplies. The WTO imposes no restrictions on the transportation of gas, and Ukraine’s entry should not lead to any changes for Russian oil and gas partners, believes Timur Khairullin, an analyst with Antanta Capital.
“Indeed, there is a small difference in gas transportation fees, but Ukraine could have easily raised them before joining the WTO; entry into this organization provides no additional arguments for Ukraine,” he noted.
Mikhail Zak, at Veles Capital, agrees. Moreover, he suggested that in future, it would be more difficult for Ukraine to maneuver in terms of gas transit: following its entry into the WTO it would have to bring its gas prices as close to European consumer prices as possible.
“Changes in transit terms are unlikely. All parties are in more or less equal conditions, but each has its trump card. Ukraine is unlikely to dictate terms. Russia can survive for a while without gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine, but Ukraine cannot survive without Russian gas,” Zak stressed.
Full article: http://top.rbc.ru/english/index.shtml?/news/english/2008/04/11/11134135_bod.shtml
.
Russian experts do not expect Ukraine’s WTO entry to have any significant impact on its ties with Russia in terms of fuel supplies. The WTO imposes no restrictions on the transportation of gas, and Ukraine’s entry should not lead to any changes for Russian oil and gas partners, believes Timur Khairullin, an analyst with Antanta Capital.
“Indeed, there is a small difference in gas transportation fees, but Ukraine could have easily raised them before joining the WTO; entry into this organization provides no additional arguments for Ukraine,” he noted.
Mikhail Zak, at Veles Capital, agrees. Moreover, he suggested that in future, it would be more difficult for Ukraine to maneuver in terms of gas transit: following its entry into the WTO it would have to bring its gas prices as close to European consumer prices as possible.
“Changes in transit terms are unlikely. All parties are in more or less equal conditions, but each has its trump card. Ukraine is unlikely to dictate terms. Russia can survive for a while without gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine, but Ukraine cannot survive without Russian gas,” Zak stressed.
Full article: http://top.rbc.ru/english/index.shtml?/news/english/2008/04/11/11134135_bod.shtml
.
Power and Russia’s backyard
Quote: In Winston Churchill’s memoirs, he records a meeting with Stalin in October 1944: “The moment was apt for business, so I said ‘Let us settle our affairs in the Balkans... So far as Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have 90 per cent predominance in Romania, for us to have 90 per cent of the say in Greece and go 50-50 about Yugoslavia?’ While this was being translated, I wrote out the percentages on a half-sheet of paper. I pushed this across to Stalin... There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down.”
I was in Georgia – Stalin’s birthplace – last week. The country regained its independence in 1991. But its leaders fear that they may yet be subject to a modern version of the Churchill-Stalin percentages deal – in which the west casually assigns Georgia into Moscow’s “sphere of influence”.
Georgian fears have been stoked by Nato’s failure to give Georgia and Ukraine “membership action plans” at the alliance’s recent summit. It is true that the summit communiqué asserted that the two countries would eventually join Nato. But it is clear that some members of the alliance harbour deep misgivings. François Fillon, the French prime minister, says that: “We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia.”
Such language is greeted with dismay in Georgia. Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, told me last week that Mr Fillon’s comments were: “clearly about spheres of influence, which is bizarre to say the least... What we are talking about is appeasement. And today it might be Georgia and tomorrow Estonia – and then, hypothetically, Finland. Finland was also in Russia’s sphere of influence. It was part of the Russian empire.”
To Mr Saakashvili, spheres of influence belong to the bad old days. US president George W. Bush agrees. He has denounced the Yalta agreement of 1945 – which recognised eastern Europe as a Soviet sphere of influence – as “one of the greatest wrongs of history”.
The arguments against informal recognition of a Russian sphere of influence are powerful. As one western diplomat puts it: “Either the ex-Soviet countries are independent states, or they are not.” As independent countries, Georgia and Ukraine should be free to make their own decisions about their security. As an alliance of free countries, Nato should not allow Russia a veto on who joins the club. In any case, Nato has already let in parts of the former Soviet Union – the three Baltic states – to the alliance. Russia has had to live with this decision.
But the counter-arguments should not be airily dismissed. For all Mr Bush’s impatience with the concept, unstated spheres of influence do still exist in the modern world. There is a powerful moral case for recognising an independent Taiwan. Yet Mr Bush has leant heavily on Taiwan not to declare independence, because China is so implacable on the issue. Taiwan is, de facto, recognised as part of a Chinese sphere of influence.
Georgia and Ukraine are also harder cases than Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russian culture has deep roots in Ukraine – and opinion polls suggest that the Ukrainian population is divided about Nato membership. Support for Nato membership is much less equivocal in Georgia. But Georgia is locked into territorial disputes with Russia – and its geographical position would make it harder to defend than the Baltic states. Yet, under article five of the Nato treaty, all Nato members would be committed to defending Georgia – a country of less than 5m people – in the event of a Russian attack.
Russia is also stronger and angrier than it was a few years ago, when Nato let in the Balts. And Russia’s concerns are not obviously unreasonable. I was in Georgia at a conference organised by the Brookings Institution. One of the American participants mused: “If the Russians were concluding military alliances with Mexico and Canada, I think we might have some concerns.”
The official American response is less understanding. The Bush administration argues that Nato is a defensive alliance and that Russian concerns are irrational and outmoded. As Mr Bush put it as his recent summit with Mr Putin: “The cold war is over.”
But the Russians are not reassured. On my last visit to Moscow, Grigory Yavlinsky, a liberal politician, explained to me that Nato’s military intervention in Kosovo had made it much harder for Russian liberals to make a pro-western case. Yes, Mr Yavlinsky said, Nato might have intervened on human-rights grounds – but the Russian population knows that its own army has committed human rights abuses in Chechnya. If Nato could bomb Belgrade in a war over human rights, why could it not bomb Moscow?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e40e89f2-0a39-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
.
I was in Georgia – Stalin’s birthplace – last week. The country regained its independence in 1991. But its leaders fear that they may yet be subject to a modern version of the Churchill-Stalin percentages deal – in which the west casually assigns Georgia into Moscow’s “sphere of influence”.
Georgian fears have been stoked by Nato’s failure to give Georgia and Ukraine “membership action plans” at the alliance’s recent summit. It is true that the summit communiqué asserted that the two countries would eventually join Nato. But it is clear that some members of the alliance harbour deep misgivings. François Fillon, the French prime minister, says that: “We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia.”
Such language is greeted with dismay in Georgia. Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian president, told me last week that Mr Fillon’s comments were: “clearly about spheres of influence, which is bizarre to say the least... What we are talking about is appeasement. And today it might be Georgia and tomorrow Estonia – and then, hypothetically, Finland. Finland was also in Russia’s sphere of influence. It was part of the Russian empire.”
To Mr Saakashvili, spheres of influence belong to the bad old days. US president George W. Bush agrees. He has denounced the Yalta agreement of 1945 – which recognised eastern Europe as a Soviet sphere of influence – as “one of the greatest wrongs of history”.
The arguments against informal recognition of a Russian sphere of influence are powerful. As one western diplomat puts it: “Either the ex-Soviet countries are independent states, or they are not.” As independent countries, Georgia and Ukraine should be free to make their own decisions about their security. As an alliance of free countries, Nato should not allow Russia a veto on who joins the club. In any case, Nato has already let in parts of the former Soviet Union – the three Baltic states – to the alliance. Russia has had to live with this decision.
But the counter-arguments should not be airily dismissed. For all Mr Bush’s impatience with the concept, unstated spheres of influence do still exist in the modern world. There is a powerful moral case for recognising an independent Taiwan. Yet Mr Bush has leant heavily on Taiwan not to declare independence, because China is so implacable on the issue. Taiwan is, de facto, recognised as part of a Chinese sphere of influence.
Georgia and Ukraine are also harder cases than Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russian culture has deep roots in Ukraine – and opinion polls suggest that the Ukrainian population is divided about Nato membership. Support for Nato membership is much less equivocal in Georgia. But Georgia is locked into territorial disputes with Russia – and its geographical position would make it harder to defend than the Baltic states. Yet, under article five of the Nato treaty, all Nato members would be committed to defending Georgia – a country of less than 5m people – in the event of a Russian attack.
Russia is also stronger and angrier than it was a few years ago, when Nato let in the Balts. And Russia’s concerns are not obviously unreasonable. I was in Georgia at a conference organised by the Brookings Institution. One of the American participants mused: “If the Russians were concluding military alliances with Mexico and Canada, I think we might have some concerns.”
The official American response is less understanding. The Bush administration argues that Nato is a defensive alliance and that Russian concerns are irrational and outmoded. As Mr Bush put it as his recent summit with Mr Putin: “The cold war is over.”
But the Russians are not reassured. On my last visit to Moscow, Grigory Yavlinsky, a liberal politician, explained to me that Nato’s military intervention in Kosovo had made it much harder for Russian liberals to make a pro-western case. Yes, Mr Yavlinsky said, Nato might have intervened on human-rights grounds – but the Russian population knows that its own army has committed human rights abuses in Chechnya. If Nato could bomb Belgrade in a war over human rights, why could it not bomb Moscow?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e40e89f2-0a39-11dd-b5b1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
.
Government doubles assistance to orphan children
Quote: The Cabinet of Ministers increased monthly assistance to orphan children from UAH 795 to UAH 1,590 (USD 1 - UAH 5.05), Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko told reporters.
She noted that the step will encourage Ukrainian citizens to adopt orphan children to their families. "We will further continue implementation of a strategic program on reduction of the number of orphan children and homeless children in the country," the Premier stressed.
http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/publish/printable_article?art_id=126094961
.
She noted that the step will encourage Ukrainian citizens to adopt orphan children to their families. "We will further continue implementation of a strategic program on reduction of the number of orphan children and homeless children in the country," the Premier stressed.
http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/publish/printable_article?art_id=126094961
.
Libya-Ukraine Reach Oil Deal
Quote: Yushchenko told Ukrainian television network ICTV on Sunday, "We want Ukraine to produce its own oil in Libya. We have reached an agreement with Qaddafi that one of the four oil fields - which were given to Ukraine in 2003 and which it has lost since -- will be returned to Kiev."Yushchenko went on to add that the Libyan leader will be traveling to Ukraine lat
.er this year, and that the construction of a refinery in the Ukraine by Libya would be discussed during the visit, AFP reported.
http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/743/1/lang,en/
.er this year, and that the construction of a refinery in the Ukraine by Libya would be discussed during the visit, AFP reported.
http://www.ukrainians.ca/content/view/743/1/lang,en/
Harsh Russian statements on Ukraine, Georgia, NATO are harmful to Russia - Nikonov
Quote: Moscow's combative response to the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO will bring only harm to the country, because it will be seen as a threat from Russia and will push these countries toward NATO with an added force, political scientist Vyacheslav Nikonov said.
"I think such discussion is harmful. Whatever the Russian side says, this will be used by Georgian and Ukrainian propaganda to strengthen the position of those in favor of NATO," Nikonov told Interfax on Friday.
Russian statements on this issue will be seen by Tbilisi and Kyiv as a "threat coming from Russia," he said.
"Therefore I consider the conversations on this issue, especially discussion of details of possibly response measures to be counterproductive," Nikonov said.
Whatever Russian politicians say on these response measures, "it will be used by those people who have got the task from the leadership of the relevant countries to make every effort to join NATO," he said.
"I think all Russian politicians and experts should be restrained in this issue," he said.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:775068293&start=3
"I think such discussion is harmful. Whatever the Russian side says, this will be used by Georgian and Ukrainian propaganda to strengthen the position of those in favor of NATO," Nikonov told Interfax on Friday.
Russian statements on this issue will be seen by Tbilisi and Kyiv as a "threat coming from Russia," he said.
"Therefore I consider the conversations on this issue, especially discussion of details of possibly response measures to be counterproductive," Nikonov said.
Whatever Russian politicians say on these response measures, "it will be used by those people who have got the task from the leadership of the relevant countries to make every effort to join NATO," he said.
"I think all Russian politicians and experts should be restrained in this issue," he said.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:775068293&start=3
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
