But probably more significant than the criminal angles of the gas saga — and with much broader consequences — was the focus of Washington’s attention as shown by WiliLeaks on the socio-ideological side of the conflict among the principal players of ex-President Viktor Yushchenko, President Viktor Yanukovych and ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in the 2008 – 2009 period.
According to Wikileaks sources, Tymoshenko was depicted in reports sent from the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv as someone who had “an obvious lack of economic foundation” and “had wasted the opportunity for implementing the economic reforms that came with the financial crisis.” Read this as an allegation of failure to impose more austerity and fiscal restraint.
Never mind that America’s own “economic foundations” and its financial system had nearly collapsed in the same time period, and the U.S. government has been piling up stratospheric budget deficits each year in the last decade — as the result of tax cutting and extravagant military spending. Worker layoffs and home foreclosures are at highest levels since the Great Depression.
As public and private debts piled up, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank embarked on a huge monetary expansion in 2009, causing acceleration of inflation.
On the other hand, while Ukraine’s oligarchs were having a banner year in 2010, America’s business elite didn’t fall behind either. Corporate entities collectively showed a record of more than 2 trillion dollars in profits for last year. There was a robust gross domestic product growth with fewer workers becoming more efficient. At the same time, according to Gallup on Jan. 19, the U.S. unemployment rate is higher than in Britain, Germany, Japan, Russia, and China.
Meanwhile, in cables sent by Ambassador William Taylor in December 2009, Tymoshenko’s presidential campaign was described as based on “populist economic policy which would enhance the role of the state” – an ultimate indictment in the vocabulary of America’s conservative Hoover Institution. Someone forgot to ask what they think of the Fed’s key role and its money printing spree.
And what about Tymoshenko’s standing vs. the new president Yanukovych, in the eyes of American diplomats? As opposition leader, “she will be a destructive force in opposition to Yanukovych” and impossible to work with. All this came in addition to describing Tymoshenko as someone with “lust for power” and “adventurous populism.”
Remarkably, Ambassador Taylor was warned by oligarch Dmytro Firtash, Tymoshenko’s main target in RosUkrEnergo gas wars, that she would make deals with Moscow. This was while the Western business community had virtually endorsed Yanukovych in his presidential bid, despite his openly pro-Moscow agenda. After becoming president, he confirmed his intentions by an across-the-board assault with Education Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk on the Ukrainian national content in the public sphere, as well as systematic violations of democratic freedoms.
This is the background in which the ongoing selective prosecution of Tymoshenko and her former cabinet members is now under way. This may not be the time to spread the blame for “why we lost Ukraine.” But Tymoshenko’s year 2010 election loss has historic implications, by far greater than “gas wars” narratives would have it.
To a large extent the realization of Ukraine’s independence has been revolving around the images, successes and failures of its leading personalities. While Yushchenko, as president, was probably Ukraine’s most spectacular failure in 300 years (in terms of political drama, lost opportunities and the consequences), Tymoshenko was and is a fighter, deserving support from many quarters despite accusations of shortcomings. Some of these, such as “she is too ambitious” are nonsensical. Others, like “giggling while listening to [Russian Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin joking about Yushchenko” are spiteful. Trivia cannot erase Tymoshenko’s Maidan images of year 2004 or undermine her connectivity with the people.
Connectivity matters. Tymoshenko came close to overcoming the apathy of almost 3 million voters who stayed at home in the year 2010 runoff elections because of a bad economy.
The Regions Party, the winners of that fateful election, who rely mainly on a solid support of Ukraine’s recidivist southeast, realize full well that opposition to their regime is politically weak without a leader of Tymoshenko’s ability and flair, which consistently attracts wide popular support. And so, there is no mystery why Yanukovych and his establishment look at the multiplicity of scattered opposition parties as a nuisance and not a threat to his hold on power.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
