It was all so nice in the U.S. capital. Yanukovych presented himself as a reformer and a democrat, met privately with U.S. President Barack Obama and agreed to give up the nation’s stockpile of enriched uranium for the sake of world peace.

This amiable international image contrasts sharply with his domestic image as henchman for the oligarchs. According to the political opposition, some critics in the media and non-governmental organizations, Yanukovych is backsliding on democracy and press freedoms.

Nobody seems to have heard these laments in the West.

President Barack Obama meets with Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych during the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, on April 12. Associated Press.

Following his talk with Obama, which investors interpreted as a positive signal for their interests in Ukraine, a jovial Yanukovych had a luncheon with American businessmen organized by the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council.

There he continued to position himself as a reformer. He promised to fight corruption, reimburse value-added tax revenues (a sore point for many Ukrainian businesses) and re-start privatization – only this time transparently. This is what the Western corporate business interests wanted to hear, so they could not help but applaud his speech.

President Barack Obama walks with Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych during the official arrivals for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12. Associated Press.

I, however, had a chance to see a less savory – but more revealing — side of the president’s visit at a press conference organized after the nuclear security summit.

There I got a firsthand look at how rigidly Yanukovych, who ducked campaign debates with presidential opponent Yulia Tymoshenko, is controlled by his handlers.

In the room, I was immediately approached by his press service. “Do you want to ask president a question?” asked one of the Yanukovych’s aides, with a tone more threatening than inquisitive.

“Yes,” I responded.

“You know, you can’t, because you are not in his pool,” the aide said.

I protested.

“This is anti-democratic. I am the only Ukrainian journalist who did not come with Yanukovych on his plane. This is not the way it is done in the West,” I said.

“We do not know how it is done in the West,” Yanukovych’s helper told me.

Then he asked: “What is the question?”

Viktor Yanukovych visits Ukrainians in America during his visit to Washington, D.C. from April 11-14. Photo by Olena Tregub.

Holding my journalistic ground, I said: “I do not have to tell you the exact question. I will just give you the topic. It’s on the IMF [International Monetary Fund].”

The unpromising response was: “One of the journalists from our pool will ask him about the meeting he had with IMF.”

I said I’d ask another question, then couldn’t resist saying: “I am not really interested in the question itself but more in your reaction and the attitude.” The head of the press service wrote down my name and affiliation but didn’t say if I’d be able to ask a question.

The press conference started with four questions that were approved in advance and for which the president was fully prepared.

The last question/comment, even more flattering than all the previous ones, compared Yanukovych to Obama in the sense that both of them got elected on the promise of major reforms.

When Yanukovych stepped down from the speaker’s podium, all of a sudden I was placed in front of the president.

With this hard-won opportunity, I asked: “Mr. President, are you going to raise the prices of gas, increase the retirement age and reduce pensions for working pensioners under IMF pressure [in order to get more loans for Ukraine]?”

Viktor Yanukovych with Ukrainians in America during his visit to Washington, D.C., from April 11-14. Photo by Olena Tregub.

He addressed the question by explaining – eloquently I must admit – that the government had an effective plan for fixing Ukrainian finances.

His plan, as it turned out only on April 21, involved substantial assistance from Ukraine’s eastern neighbor.

In exchange for extending the lease on the Russian Black Sea naval base in Ukraine and very likely, some as-yet-unknown additional conditions, Russia agreed to subsidize Ukraine’s feeble economy in the form of cheaper-than-normal natural gas imports from Russia.

Most importantly, perhaps, is that revenue of Ukrainian industrial-baron oligarchs will go up during the length of this energy-import deal.

To make conclusions about the state of freedom of press in Ukraine, one needs to read more than the communiqués of Reporters without Borders to understand the decline under way.

There are more systemic changes taking place. In Kyiv, many journalists believe that the chief of the State Security Service, Valery Khoroshkovsky, a media magnate himself, is in charge of contacting other media owners to ensure a favorable TV coverage of the new leadership.

By the way, the same Khoroshkovsky slightly thwarted Yanukovych’s efforts to win over American hearts. On the first day of Yanukovych’s stay in the United States, the Washington Post published an open letter to Yanukovych from RTVi journalists. In the paid advertisement, they urged the president to prevent the Security Service Service, or SBU, from interfering with press freedoms or the work of the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting.

The fear is that the new Ukrainian leadership aspires to its Russian counterpart, which exercises a tight grip on the main TV channels, leaving some freedom for independent thinkers on the Internet or in newspapers.

There is unverified talk that Hanna Herman, the deputy head of the president administration, is working on designing media agendas for TV channels while ex-President Leonid Kuchma’s former speech writer, Vyacheslav Pikhovshek, with relevant experience in this matter, is assisting her. The fear is that a more sophisticated form of the infamous “temnyky” – written instructions on how to cover the president, used during Kuchma’s second term — might be just around the corner.

The “commercial democracy” in media seems to be coming to an end. It flourished during the five-year reign of ex-President Viktor Yushchenko and ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Under the rules of this game, everyone was equal as long as they were able to pay for the coverage.

Despite Tymoshenko’s request to participate in a political talk show on Inter TV, partly owned by the SBU chief Khoroshkovsky, she was surprisingly turned down by TV host Yevgeny Kiselyov. It looks a bit odd that the host of the Great Politics show now considers the politician who lost to Yanukovych by only 3 percentage points as not interesting to the audience.

The other day I asked an official from the current administration: “Would you reintroduce control over media to preserve the power for 10 years?”

“Why would we do it?” he kindly answered. “We came to power without controlling the media.”

In the U.S., Yanukovych’s visit was choreographed with more precision than his Ukrainian daily performances. Yanukovych orderly laid flowers to Taras Shevchenko’s monument. He was on time, arrived without a police escort or accompanying ambulance. No traffic was disrupted and no streets closed.

He smiled and said little. He had friendly conversations with ordinary Ukrainians who gathered for the ceremony, including many with political affiliations that could not be further from the president’s electoral base. He sang Shevchenko’s “Zapovit,” embraced the women, held a baby, presented banduras and found time to pose for photos with the crowd.

Democracy certainly gave Yanukovych his chance to be president and, for that reason, he should be more appreciative of its benefits.

But there is no need for wishful thinking.

Yanukovych’s pro-Russian policies might make him so unpopular in western and central Ukraine that free media could be threatening to the administration.

The balance of power has shifted so heavily in favor of Yanukovych and his Party of Regions. This cannot help but raise concerns that the new team might abuse their powers.

With such political changes in the works, more questions will be asked of Yanukovych and his people from a nation that will not be easily silenced.

Olena Tregub is a freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C.