Firtash-led 'party of war' in charge?

Print version
Oct. 15, 2011, 2:21 p.m. | Op-ed — by David Marples

Ukrainian riot police officers block supporters of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko outside the Pecherskiy District Court in Kiev,Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2011. Tymoshenko was found guilty of abuse of office and sentenced to seven years in jail, in a trial widely condemned in the West as politically motivated. Judge Rodion Kireyev also barred Tymoshenko, now the country's top opposition leader, from occupying government posts for three years and fined her 1.5 billion hryvna (US$190 million or euro140 million) for the damages her actions cost the state.(AP Photo/Sergei Chuzavkov)

David Marples

Special to Kyiv Post

The news that imprisoned former premier of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko is now facing charges of embezzlement, linked to her time as the president of United Energy Systems of Ukraine in the 1990s, raises questions about the motivations of the Ukrainian government and President Viktor Yanukovych in particular. Why was she jailed in the first place? And why has an old issue, linked to a time when virtually all the Ukrainian oligarchs had their hands in the public trough, suddenly resurfaced?

On Wednesday, Tymoshenko received a seven-year prison sentence for her part in a gas deal negotiated with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in 2009 that was "disadvantageous for Ukraine." Throughout the trial she had expressed her contempt for the judge and prosecutor and argued that the procedure was politically motivated. Virtually all the Western governments concurred while Russia was furious that the 2009 agreement had been so publicly reopened.

Yanukovych, supposedly, wished to rid himself of his main political opponent before the parliamentary elections scheduled for October 2012. However, the trial and verdict endangered Ukraine's chances of signing an Association Agreement with the European Union, which has been under negotiation for some time. Some critics, such as David Kramer of Freedom House, maintain that the discussions should be postponed until Tymoshenko and other opposition leaders have been released and pardoned.

But why was she tried and imprisoned at all?

One suggestion, offered by Dominique Arel, chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Ottawa, is that Yanukovych persecuted Tymoshenko because he believed he could get away with it.

The premise is that for the Europeans, relations with Ukraine are too important to be imperilled by a domestic quarrel.

Writing in a Russian source, analysts Maksim Logvinov and Vladislav Zhukovsky speculated that the goal of the original trial was to force Russia to revise the price of gas sold to Ukraine. They also maintain that targeting Tymoshenko was a means to divert blame from the government for the economic crisis that Ukraine will face shortly because of the high prices of gas. However, the gamble failed because all the relevant parties - Russia, the EU, and the United States - took the side of Tymoshenko and criticized the Ukrainian authorities. In many ways the trial became a cause célèbre for the embattled Ukrainian opposition.

Yet the actions of Yanukovych still lack rationale and these analyses perhaps attribute a degree of Machiavellianism and political astuteness to the president that have not always been evident, despite his triumphant election victory in January 2010.

Ukrainian analyst Vitalii Portnikov has provided the most logical explanation: the initiatives in the Tymoshenko case are not coming from the president but from a "party of war" within the leadership that includes the head of the Secret Service (SBU), Valery Khoroshkovsky, Serhii Yevochkin of the presidential administration, Energy Minister Yury Boyko, prominent businessman Dmytro Firtash and Minister of Foreign Affairs Kostyantyn Hryshchenko. Their goal is to isolate Yanukovych and undermine any plans for integration with the EU or the Russian-led Customs Union. Both are perceived as threats to their own power.

The presence within this group of Firtash is possibly the most significant. An ally of former president Viktor Yushchenko, he established a position for his company RosUkrEnergo as an intermediary in the bitter gas war between Russia and Ukraine. Firtash offered to buy the gas from Russia and resell it to Ukraine.

Tymoshenko, a woman of formidable business acumen, cut Firtash out of the equation with the 2009 agreement. He is now officially back in business (he also controls much of Ukraine's titanium industry), and out for revenge. The goal appears to be to ensure the complete demise of his rival.

As for the new charges, there is little question that Tymoshenko - then known as the "gas princess" - benefited from state patronage. From 1995 to 1997, when she was president of United Energy Systems of Ukraine, she was given highly lucrative government contracts - including control over imported gas from Russia - by then Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who was later convicted for money laundering and wire fraud by a U.S. court. Yet the list of those who could be tried for past crimes in Ukraine is a long one that includes many current oligarchs, and one past president.

It seems safest to assume that either Yanukovych is far more scheming than many have surmised hitherto, or else (and more likely) he is being prodded and pushed by powerful interest groups whose goal is to keep Ukraine free from economic ties so that they are left free to amass wealth.

Such "freedom" requires the obliteration of the opposition and its leader, manipulation of elections, and systematic deployment of the SBU against their critics. In Arel's view, by targeting Yulia Tymoshenko the Ukrainian government has demonstrated it has the wherewithal to stop opponents from challenging the president.

The main casualty is democratic Ukraine.

But few of the "party of war" are likely to lose sleep over that.

David Marples is distinguished university professor at the University of Alberta and director of the Stasiuk Program on Contemporary Ukraine, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies. This article, reprinted with the author's permission, originally was published in the Edmonton Journal here.
The Kyiv Post is hosting comments to foster lively debate. Criticism is fine, but stick to the issues. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks will be removed from the site. If you think that a posted comment violates these standards, please flag it and alert us. We will take steps to block violators.
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 2:51 p.m.    

Firtash has the whipping hand on her. She almost had the whipping hand on him but lost her chance in 2010. Had she won, his castle would have been destroyed clearly. Both are similar, just one retired from being a embezzler to become a populist politician... and she has striking iconic aura and quick wit, while he is a shady figure of few public words. But a spade's a spade in any deck. All politicans who grew up during those times made their careers by the code of the 90s at that time. If one day they fall, people of Ukraine let them fall. Live by the sword die by the sword. Save the witty soundbites for the western press hounds, they don't mean much in Kiev.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 4:30 p.m.    

The huge problem with what you are saying is:

1) you assume that Firtash and his thugs will use government to turn only on political rivals --- however, as the thugs fight each other, as Firtash accumulates wealth by leading Yanupineapple around by the nose like a cow, the people get crushed, there is no democracy in Ukraine, and ---- Firtash won't stop just with Tymoshenko --- there are 12 former officials who have been charges for crossing Firtash.

2) This is not a matter of witty soundbites - this is a matter of survival of a country, and whether the country stays as Firtashia, where only Firtash, Boyko, Lyovochkin and Boogooslonskaya have rights, or Ukraine, as a democracy, where all people have rights.

Remember, one of the pictures that Ukrainian Pravda showed when The Pineapple gave journalists his tour of Mezhihirya was - a very, very fancy glossy brochure from Firtash's company.

That speaks volumes about Firtash, the self-styled &quot;savior of Ukraine,&quot; and The Pineapple.

Last night on the Savik Shuster show, it was very evident that the dogs of war from the Party of Robbers had been unleased.

There was Lukyanenko, and Boogooslonskaya especially, who, with fangs and claws bared, was snarling, barking, howling, growling, foaming and spitting and frothing at the mouth in typical sovok style about how the &quot;conviction&quot; of Tymoshenko was &quot;justified.&quot;

At one point, when Lukyanenko was snarling, Shuster told him that the audience meters in the studio showed that he had zero - zero - support.

Lukyanenko then insulted the audience by his remark to the effect that &quot;well, of course, that's expected for this audience.&quot;

To which Savik replied with a classic remark:

&quot;Would you like me to get a different audience for you?&quot;

Firtash, Boyko, The Krokodile Hryshchenko, The Pineapple &quot;president,&quot; Lyovochkin, Boogooslonskaya, and the rest of that sovok mafia do not care if there is a stalinist show trial system in place in Ukraine.

There is very clearly a massive effort to unleash the dogs of war against Tymo - so that Firtash gets his revenge.

Welcome to Firtashia!!

спасибо жителям Донбасса

за президента пидирасса

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 6:31 p.m.    

you are rambling like an old woman and your comments could have been written in crayon elmer, for all their weight.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 4:52 p.m.    

I am sooooooo sorry that you didn't like &quot;my rambling&quot; about Boogooslonskaya's snarling and foaming at the mouth, as the chief Anti-Tymoshenko Expert.

Here's another clip for you, as Boogooslonsakya, yet another hideous sovok, snarls and growls and shouts and blathers and spits and groans and moans and bombasts about her favorite subject: Tymoshenko.

Maybe you, too, can enjoy the audience laughing at the hideous snarling foaming-at-the-mouth Boogooslonskaya, the Anti-Tymoshenko.

This from the same Savik Shuster show as she tries to justify a stalinist show trial kangaroo court system in Ukraine:

&quot;До тих пір поки в Україні на вищих посадах будуть знаходитися люди з кримінальним минулим...&quot;.

With an ever-so fervent rhetorical flourish and appeal to the audience, she starts out about the Chief Evil In Ukraine Today, Tymoshenko

&quot;As long as people with a criminal past are allowed to run this country&quot;

To which the audience responded with guffaws and laughter - because The Pineapple has a criminal past.

To which Boogoooslonskaya responded at one point that there is a &quot;mass psychosis&quot; on the part of the audience.

She is one hideous snake - but that's an insult to snakes.

She then started over:

&quot;As long as people with an ECONOMIC criminal past.........&quot;

So here's the Party of Regions &quot;logic&quot; -

If you have a criminal past of murder, rape, assault, robbery, it is perfectly OK to be president of Ukraine - and The Pineapple is, of course, the prime example.

But if you have an ECONOMIC criminal past, then that's not OK,

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 6:24 p.m.    

long line of soundbites. firtash and tymoshenko are mortal enemies. she lost and she's feeling the wrath she'd love to put onto him. ukrainian democracy has always been an empty phrase for the voting masses, ukraine is a state run by clans since independence. she understood this was coming for her which is why she said less than one month after being booted from prime minister spot that they were preparing a case against her but she would never leave. she's fighting until the end and it's a personal war as much as anything else. for now he's kicking her around.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 6:52 p.m.    

Great response elmer....

Ignore the guy below.....just the ramblings of someone who does nothing to help his country,,,but critisizes others....

Sooner or later, the people will wake up,,,,,and hit the streets......( hopefully, not later...)

Ukraine belongs to the people......



{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 9:29 p.m.    

useless political poetry

written for the garbage can

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 3:40 p.m.    

What needs to be stated is that the allegations and complaint that led to Tymoshenko being charged and imprisonment arose from Viktor Yushchenko's appointed National Security Council in the dying days of Yushenko's term of office in 2009. Yabnukovych just continued to pursue what Yushchenko and Firtash started.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 9:03 p.m.    

In the analysis of David Marples published by Kyiv Post

David Marples leaves out part of the history behind Ukraine's poliical manoverings wich all play a part in the events that are unfolding today. Much of it has roots to Yushchenko's failed term of office

Marples correctly stated

&quot;The presence within this group of Firtash is possibly the most significant. An ally of former president Viktor Yushchenko, he established a position for his company RosUkrEnergo as an intermediary in the bitter gas war between Russia and Ukraine. Firtash offered to buy the gas from Russia and resell it to Ukraine.&quot;

Here lies much of the problem Victor Yushchenko, Ukraine past President, fuelled by resentment and desire for revenge, has against Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine's past Prime-minster. Yushchenko, blames Tymoshenko for his political demise and low standing in the polls. Truth is Yushchenko has only himself to blame.

Victor Yushchenko persistently attacked and undermined those who had supported his election.

His down fall started before he was elected when he opposed Ukraine becoming a parliamentary democracy back in 2002.

The compromise and changes to Ukraine's Constitution that enabled Yushchenko to win the 2004 Presidential election was a natural progression that stemmed from the 2002 reform proposals . The amendments agreed to would become in force following the March 2006 Parliamentary elections. Amendments that saw Ukraine shift from a Presidential-parliamentary system to a Parliamentary-Presidential system of government.

Yushchenko’s refusal to support the formation of a orange coalition following 2006 Parliamentary election was the period that saw the beginning of the end of the Orange coalition. Yushchenko first tried to oust Tymoshenko from the leadership, when that failed his party then went after Olexandr Moroz. Yushchenko was not prepared to share power or support Ukraine's new democratic government. It was his way or no way. Yushchenko gambled with the outcome of failed negotiations and lost. Three months had elapsed and Ukraine was facing a major constitutional crises. Moroz abandoned support for Yushchenko and his party and agreed to form a governing coalition of unity to Yushchenko's disliking. This saw Yanukovych assume the role of Prime Minister putting Party of Regions back in government. Has Yushchenko supported the orange coalition Party of Regions would have remained in opposition.

The events of 2007 saw the whole thing blow up and collapse.

Yushchenko, facing the prospect of losing power with support growing for further Constitutional reform, dismissed Ukraine's parliament causing seven month of political and civil unrest. Yushchenko was convinced that he, with the support of the breakaway Socialist party group &quot;Peoples self defence&quot; would win the majority vote in fresh Parliamentary elections. Again Yushchenko gambled with the outcome and lost. Yushchenko's Party went backwards and Tymoshenko secured the majority of the Orange coalition support.

The Socialist Party, whose votes were halved in the election, fell short by 0.14% from being elected to parliament. Had they secured the 3% representation threshold the overall results of the election would not have change from that in 2006.

The November 2007 Parliamentary election result saw Ukraine’s parliament divided with the alliance between Bloc Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine combined managing to win the majority vote on the floor of the parliament by the smallest of margins.

Within days the Our Ukraine grouping, at the bequest of Yushchenko’s office, was refusing to support Tymoshenko who had held three times the number of Parliamentary seats then Our Ukraine. Tymoshenko lost the first round of voting on the floor of the parliament to eventually won by a vote of one. This left Ukraine in an even more unstable position then it was before the 2007 elections.

Yushchenko continued to engaged in a war of attrition undermining the government at every stage.

In 2008 Yushchenko wanted to Ukraine to go to war with Russia in support of the Georgian Government, who within the support of the USA Government at the time had provoked Russia into a short lived civil war by invading the autonomous regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Northern Georgia.

If Ukraine had acted on Yushchenko's orders we would have seen a full scaled regional war break out. Thanks to cool heads, and Tymoshenko, the escalation of war with Russia was avoided.

Yushchenko was alienated in the period that followed and Yushchenko once again tried to have the parliament dismissed. A move that was rejected with Yushchenko's own party splitting down the middle. Tymoshenko negotiated the support of block Lytvyn to shore up her government by an additional 20 votes of the floor of the parliament by offering Lytvyn the position of Parliamentary speaker, a postion that Yushchenko had denied Olexandr Moroz back in 2006.

Yushchenko's public support slumped to below 5% and he never recovered with over 85% of Ukraine actively opposed to his continued presidency.

Efforts to revive the prospects of further constitutional reform and the removal of Yushchenko from office came close but fell apart in teh last minute with the various parties failing to agree on the detail and structure of the new parliament.

The rest is history.

Yushchenko tried to cling on to power until the last minute, knowing that he was going to be defeated. His target of revenge was Tymoshenko.

In 2009 Gas wars broke out between Ukeaine and Russia, with Dmitry Firtash, an ally and close friend of Yushchenko, seeking to be set himself up as a middle man energy broker for the sale and supply of gas to Ukraine. A contact that stood to win him hundreds of millions of dollars in profits taht naturaly would benefit Yushchenko as well..

Yulia Tymoshenko was opposed to Ukraine having to deal with a third party broker in the supply of gas to Ukraine. This precipitated the so called gas wars between Russia and Ukraine that followed as a result.

Firtash's company lost out and a negotiated contract between Ukraine and Russia was agreed to ending the standoff that saw Europe's denied the supply of Russian gas.

Yushchenko, who was backing Firtash's gas takeover, and seeking revenge against Tymoshenko enaged the National Security Council to initiate allegations and charges of abuse of office against Tymoshenko arining from the signing of the gas contract between russia and Ukraine. The Natuional Security Council is a presidential executive body appointed by Yushchenko at the time.

It is these charges and allegation made by Yushchenko and the National Security Council that saw Tymoshenko imprisoned on October 11, 2011

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 5:55 p.m.    

Firtash is not to blame yulia was out of line to cut him off in gas trade.He could have been replaced when contracts expired but she was determined to ride her phoney populism like when she took back the steel mill arcelor mittal.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 6:28 p.m.    

firtash and yuliya are two sides of the same coin. she looks better and is more polished so she is &quot;heads&quot; - he is &quot;tails&quot; and in the coin flip of life only one can be the winner. it is a zero sum game between those two individuals. right now the coin flip is tails and it's not been pretty for ukraine in diplomatic spheres... to be sure!

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 9:31 p.m.    

Please Firtash and Yushenko are at the heart of Ukraine's problems. Tymoshenko is her own worst enemy, her greatest failing was trusting and supporting Yushchenko. Yushchenko initied the arrest of Tymoshenko back in 2009.

The president (Yanukovych)recalled that the Tymoshenko case started at a meeting of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council in February 2009, when the police were ordered to hold an investigatio

Read more:

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 10:11 p.m.    

I am pretty sure losing to Yanuk in a free and fair election, after demeaning him like a madwoman for 1 hour in a nationally televised debate that he skipped attending, was her biggest failure. And now she is getting ill treatment by the same judges who she helped appoint in the first place.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 12:19 a.m.    

No one defends Tymoshenko's actions. She was doing a good job of self destruction without Yanukovych's intervention.

BUT to say that that warrants her persecution and imprisonment is something difficult to fathom.

Yushchenko started the persecution by the decision of his National Security Council in lodging a complaint.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 7:09 p.m.    

For the readers and people please, give an explanation for following.

Excellent article,,,,,,but you have a MAJOR mistake.

Mr Firtash is a sitting member of Rada......yet you describe him as &quot;...prominent businessman Dmytro Firtash...&quot;

Is this not a conflict of interest????

Some of the others mentioned in your story fall into the same catagory.

I, as a Canadian, see the gross and astounding illegality of this.....please write a story, and explain, for readers,,,,,,the absolute absurdity of this dual actions.

I am quite sure,,,,,the readers would appreciate to learn of how despicable and illegal this is .

The Constitution of Ukraine and Canada,,,,does NOT ALLOW for this dual role.!!

thank you


{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 9:40 p.m.    

True the constitution does not allow this conflict of interest.

Article 78.

National Deputies of Ukraine exercise their authority on a permanent basis.

National Deputies of Ukraine shall not have another representative mandate or be in the civil service.

Requirements concerning the incompatibility of the mandate of the deputy with other types of activity are established by law.

Article 103

The President of Ukraine shall not have another representative mandate, hold office in bodies of state power or in associations of citizens, and also perform any other paid or entrepreneurial activity, or be a member of an administrative body or board of supervisors of an enterprise that is aimed at making profit.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 7:57 p.m.    

Every MEP has one or more business affairs. Some report it and some deny it, choosing to conduct their affairs through trusted &quot;advisors&quot; and/or family members. So are you new to Ukraine or did you just have your head up your arse for past 20 years..?

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 11:10 p.m.    

FYI.....and clearly stated..&quot;I, as a Canadian....&quot; ( a second generation Canadian of Ukrainian descent)

One who lives in one of the best countries in the world (Don't take my word......research for yourself)

I encourage the people to stand up and fight for their country; they own it.

But, you sir, guest 19:57, have allowed MEP's for past 20 years to hold office and conduct private business and not asking why.

May I suggest, respectfully,,,,it is you who has had your head up your arse for past 20 years,,,,and did nothing.


(....we are, in fact, on the same side )


May I respec

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 10:15 p.m.    

There is no politician in Ukraine's history including Yulia that has not been involved with business. For goodness sake, she made her fortune being the bag woman for the sitting prime minister lazarenko.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 9:22 p.m.    

It was a reasonable question and just because he might not have followed Ukraine closely over the last decade or two does not warrnant your abusive comments. It most certainly does not help your position.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 11:15 p.m.    

Then are you saying,,,,,this was done in the past,,,so its ok to keep doing this !!!

I strongly suggest,,,,to put an end to this illegal actions.

This is the point I am making.

TAKE UKRAINE BACK.......and stop this outrageous corruption.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 9:21 p.m.    

Firtash and Tymoshenko are mortal enemies who have been trying to destroy each other for 10 years. She tries to destroy him as much as possible when she is in power... and he spends significant money backing whoever is running against her or in a balance of power position to her. It's personal and stemming from the fact they are in their DNAs very similar gas bandits. Everything else, circumstances surrounding how they attack each other and in what legal mechanism, are a result of their personal hatred. This year he put a major blow on her, such as she dreams to do to him.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 10:07 p.m.    

'T would be nice if Ukraine had a real constitutional court and not only a marionette of powerful figures in that country.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 10:13 p.m.    

Its true. And ironic that very many of those judges were appointed by Yulia herself. True and ironic. Reap what you sow.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 12:12 a.m.    

True. It would have been good if the Constitutional Court was able to rule on Yushchenko;s dismissle of Ukraine's previous parliament back in 2007.

Yushenko illegally dismissed three Constitutional Court Judges in what was an obvious attempt and direct violation of Ukraine's Constitution to prevent the Court from ruling against his decree. He then tried to retrospectively cancel the Judges appointment. Yushchenko should have been impeached for his actions which caused seven months of political and civil unrest and untold economic hardship.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 10:17 p.m.    

Read what Firtash has sacked from Ukrainian people by the help of Yanukovitch:,1518,736745-2,00.html

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 10:18 p.m.    

Sorry, this is the start of the document Firtash/Yanikovitch/Timoshenko gas war:,1518,736745,00.html

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, midnight    

The new president needed only a few months to gain control over the executive, the majority of the parliament and most of the judges, who were already corrupt. The &quot;ancient human instinct of fear has to be activated to a much greater degree again,&quot; said his prime minister

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 12:06 a.m.    

The Commercial Interests of an Oligarch

SPIEGEL has since been able to review copies of the Stockholm decision. A passage on page 4, under item 4, reads: &quot;Although 'Naftogaz' initially claimed, during the course of this arbitration, that the procurement of the 11 billion cubic meters of gas was sufficiently justified from a legal standpoint, it now states that this was not the case.&quot; In a different passage, Naftogaz suddenly admits that this gas &quot;belongs to and has always belonged to RUE.&quot;

As dry as these sentences sound, they are also incredibly explosive. It now becomes clear why the new leadership did not publish the arbitration court's decision: Naftogaz, despite being in a difficult financial position, reversed its legal position by 180 degrees after the change of government in Kiev. The company itself pushed the Stockholm court to reach a decision that was unfavorable for Ukraine. Besides, as SPIEGEL has also learned, Naftogaz removed the names of the relevant Gazprom officials from statements. The Russian company, which had facilitated the January 2009 deal, was hardly even mentioned in the proceedings.

There can be no other conclusion: Viktor Yanukovich, the president of Ukraine, served the commercial interests of an oligarch with whom he has close ties -- at the expense of his own country. And, in doing so, he also did Moscow a favor.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 15, 2011, 11:34 p.m.    

Speculation about the political motives of Yanukovych just will never fit. He is a criminal with criminal mentality and motives. Apply criminal motives and everything makes perfect sense.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 12:27 a.m.    

It's time

The people of Ukraine must take collective responsibility for their own Governance

Ukraine MUST reform it's Constitution and implement a full parliamentary model of government

Ukraine MUST reform the Parliament to make it more accountable and representative of the people.

Ukraine MUST overhaul the judiciary and system of law to bring it in line with European values in fulfillment of the principles of rule of law. The Judiciary MUST be independent and professional

Ukraine NEED to do the above.. and then


{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 8:49 a.m.    

According to statements made by prime minister Azarov - Terrorize them into compliance - Rule by fear.

The biggest challenge for Ukrainian civil society is not to become marginalized, as happened in Belarus. This is not easy, given that it has become clear in Yanukovych’s first year that the main driving force behind the power of the authorities is fear.

That was made clear by Prime Minister Mykola Azarov at a conference in Yalta last year when he said, “Fear is one of the main human instincts, and it has to be made to work.”

Every action taken by the authorities — the arrests and interrogations of opposition leaders, the constant visits by the tax police to private firms — has one goal, to spread fear.

And not only in the opposition, but in the ranks of the ruling party as well. It is no secret that senior officials in the party have differing views, but they keep them to themselves.

Read more:

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 9:11 a.m.    

Yanukovych is currently confiscating many businesses of western investors and dealing those businesses to his Party of Regions friends and family.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 16, 2011, 6:21 p.m.    

Yanukonvict is in charge! Without him,the so called &quot;party of war&quot; will disintergrate.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Oct. 17, 2011, 2:34 a.m.    

Chornovil accused Firtash in the prosecutions of Tymoshenko

{# <-- parent id goes here


© 1995–2014 Public Media

Web links to Kyiv Post material are allowed provided that they contain a URL hyperlink to the material and a maximum 500-character extract of the story. Otherwise, all materials contained on this site are protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced without the prior written permission of Public Media at
All information of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency placed on this web site is designed for internal use only. Its reproduction or distribution in any form is prohibited without a written permission of Interfax-Ukraine.