UKRAINIANS PREFER STRONG LEADERS

David Marples

Two recent opinion polls by the Research and Branding Institute in Kyiv provide some startling revelations about political opinions in Ukraine, just as Parliament has approved new presidential elections on January 17.

A June 2009 poll with over 2,000 respondents from all regions of Ukraine is declared to have a margin of error of 2.2%. It provides a plethora of data about the leading candidates for president. Former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who lost in the 2004 elections to current president Viktor Yushchenko, leads with the support of 26.8% of respondents, followed by Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko at 15.8%, and former Foreign Minister and chairman of parliament Arsenii Yatsenyuk, 12.3%. President Yushchenko is backed by a meager 2.1%.

If the election, as seems likely, requires a second round, then Yanukovych would triumph over either of his main challengers: against Tymoshenko by 38.8 to 28.8%; and against Yatsenyuk by 36.7 to 30.8%. If the second round were between Yatsenyuk and Tymoshenko, the former would eke out a narrow victory.

The emergence of Yatsenyuk as a serious contender is a recent phenomenon. A former protégé of President Yushchenko, he reportedly has financial backing from two controversial figures: Dmitrii Firtash, a leading stockholder in the RosUkrEnergo company that mediated in the dispute over the price for the sale of Russian gas to Ukraine; and Viktor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of former President Leonid Kuchma, who owns four Ukrainian TV channels. A native of Chernivtsi, Yatsenyuk is of Jewish origin and turned 35 on May 22, the minimum age at which one can run for the post of president.

At present, 51.2% of those polled will definitely participate in the elections, while 24% may exercise their right to vote. As there is speculation that parliamentary elections may take place simultaneously, the standing of the major political parties is also of relevance: the Regions Party leads among respondents with 29.3%, followed by the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc with 15.5%, and the Yatsenyuk Bloc with 10.6%.

Recently, a move to form a coalition between the two largest blocs (Regions and Tymoshenko) failed after Yanukovych ultimately rejected the idea. At one point the Regions leader had suggested changing the minimum age to run for president to 50, which would have removed Tymoshenko and Yatsenyuk from the contest.

A poll conduced by the same organization in May focused on attitudes of residents of Ukraine to other countries and blocs. These results are perhaps even more enlightening, given the general synopsis in Western media that Ukraine is Western leaning or pro-Europe.

Over 35% of those polled would prefer to see Ukraine join a Union with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan; 20% would like Ukraine to join a United Europe (European Union); and 23% want the country to remain independent without joining any such formation. Incidentally, support for joining the EU is much higher in Belarus than in Ukraine.

In terms of attitudes to leaders of former Soviet republics, 58% hold a positive attitude toward Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, 56% feel the same way about hard-line Belarusian president Alyaksandr Lukashenka, and 55% have a favorable attitude toward Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. By contrast only 11% feel positive about Georgian president Mikeil Saakashvili.

Western leaders are considerably less popular. The highest rated is US President Barack Obama (31%), followed by Angela Merkel of Germany (29%), and Frances’ Nicolas Sarkozy and Poland’s Lech Kaczynski (tied at 22%). Notably, however, both Obama and Merkel received higher totals than Ukraine’s leading candidate Yanukovych.

Lastly, looking at attitudes toward other countries, the results were as follows: 57% of respondents feel positively toward Russia, 45% toward Belarus, and 20% toward Germany. Only 3% feel positively about Georgia, which was supported firmly by President Yushchenko during its August 2008 war with Russia.

Some deductions can be made from these results, which are consistent with findings of Western researchers such as Stephen White at the University of Glasgow.

First, the economic downturn has not affected significantly the political attitudes of Ukrainian residents. Ukrainian citizens appear to favor strong leaders over weak, albeit more democratic–leaning statespersons. They are generally pro-Russian and skeptical toward both the United States and the EU.

Second, the chances of success of Prime Minister Tymoshenko in the January 2010 elections are slim. Her popularity has fallen in recent months after the seemingly endless squabbles with the president and what is perceived as her single-minded pursuit of the highest office. At one point she clearly intended to push through a constitutional change to elect the next president through the parliament, but such a maneuver today would only work in favor of Yanukovych.

Third, regionally there is a marked contrast between attitudes in western regions and the rest of Ukraine. Western Ukraine is more pro-Europe and anti-Russian, with political support divided between Tymoshenko (23.4%) and Yatsenyuk (23.2%). However, Western Ukrainians make up only one-fifth of Ukraine’s population.

Fourth, Ukrainians are deeply unhappy with the current president, an increasingly isolated figure who seems incapable of communicating in any meaningful way with his electorate. A realist might opt not to run and campaign for newcomer Yatsenyuk, notwithstanding the credibility of some of his financial backers. But Yushchenko seems intent on running again, even though every indicator suggests that he is unelectable.

This article appeared originally in the EDMONTON JOURNAL on 27 June 2009.

Russian Duma’s Discussion of Second World War Revisionism in the Near Abroad States

By Ilya Khineiko

In Russia as well in other post-Soviet states, history, particularly the history of the Second World War, is not merely a matter of academic debate. Politicians from the highest echelons of power often find it instrumental to dwell on controversial historical issues. Last October, in a letter sent to the Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev weighed in on the proper interpretation of the Ukrainian Famine, the Holodomor. In December 2008, the Russian parliament decided to move in a similar direction, creating a working group to draft a new law against the rehabilitation of Nazism and Nazi collaborators in the post-Soviet states. Chaired by deputy head of the Duma’s Committee for CIS Affairs, Konstantin Zatulin, the group produced a legislative draft proposal with a lengthy title “On the countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazi criminals and their facilitators in the new independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union.” It was published by the pro-government news agency Regnum on 20 April 2009 (full Russian text is available here: http://www.regnum.ru/news/1153517.html).

Probably the most striking feature of the bill is the issue of jurisdiction as it explicitly targets Russia’s neighbors. While the notion of universal jurisdiction has gained ground in the past decade, an attempt to direct domestic legislation against a specific set of countries represents a novel approach to international law. Furthermore, according to a Russian legal expert quoted in the Moscow Times, the proposed legislation would violate the Russian Criminal Code as it “only allows penalties for crimes committed in Russia.”

However, even the stated intention to focus on all former Soviet republics is somewhat misleading. In an interview with Radio Liberty, Konstantin Zatulin singled out Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine where “the attempts to rehabilitate Nazi criminals and their facilitators… have become a matter of state policy”. He admitted that any similar actions in other, more remote, countries, such as Australia for example, would be of no concern to the bill’s authors. According to Radio Liberty, many Verkhovna Rada deputies are convinced that the bill is directed primarily against Ukraine. This comes as no surprise as Zatulin’s troubled relationship with Ukrainian authorities is well known. In July 2008 he was denied entry into Ukraine. Ukrainian Security Chief Valentyn Nalyvaychenko later explained that Zatulin had violated a Ukrainian law on the status of a foreigner during a previous visit to Ukraine when he made statements regarding the country’s territorial integrity.

The reaction of Ukrainian parliamentarians has been uniformly negative. Yuri Kostenko from Our Ukraine sharply criticized the bill, saying that it would turn Russia into a new “gendarme of Europe.” Even members of the ostensibly pro-Russian Party of Regions were not impressed. According to Valery Konovalyuk, as far as the international law is concerned, such legislative initiative does not represent a sound approach. In the context of Russian-Ukrainian relations, the bill can be considered a response to the draft law against Holodomor denial that President Viktor Yushchenko submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in December 2008. Although the Ukrainian bill does not attempt to prosecute people outside Ukraine, it proposes to imprison those who deny the genocidal character of the Holodomor against the Ukrainian people, an interpretation vigorously contested by Russia’s authorities and most Russian historians.

Perhaps the most ambiguous and controversial aspect of the new legislation is its definition of what constitutes a rehabilitation of Nazism and who should be deemed Nazi facilitators. The draft states that a Nazi facilitator (posobnik) is someone who served in or collaborated with the German occupation administration on the territory of the USSR voluntarily or as a result of mobilization (sic! – I.Kh.). Rehabilitation of Nazism is defined as “any actions aimed at… the reinstatement of rights, glorification, [as well as any attempts] to restore reputation of Nazi criminals and facilitators and their organizations by bestowing them with benefits, state or societal awards and to deny Nazi genocide and crimes against humanity”. This incredibly vague definition leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and obfuscates the true intentions of the bill’s authors, namely to criminalize any opinion that questions the role of the USSR in the Second World War. According to Konstantin Zatulin, “There were no third forces in the Second World War. The logic of war compelled people either to side with Nazi Germany and then start shooting at Soviet soldiers or to choose the side of the anti-Hitler coalition.” Zatulin’s definition does not differ substantially from the old Soviet line that equated anti-Soviet resistance with Nazi collaborationism. That the struggle against alleged ‘rehabilitation of Nazism’ is being used to defend the Soviet past and its remaining symbols is revealed in Zatulin’s statement made in early April. In an interview with the Russian news agency RIA-Novosti, he called the dismantling of the statue of the Soviet Soldier in the city of Stryj in Lviv oblast an outrageous act and promised to accelerate work on the appropriate legislation.

While the draft bill purports to target equally Russian citizens and citizens of other post-Soviet states, it is unlikely that the legislation would be ever applied against the rise of pro-Nazi sentiment in Russia itself. In an ironic twist of events, a few days after the bill’s publication, fans of the Russian soccer club Spartak Moscow unveiled a banner commemorating the anniversary of Hitler’s birthday during a game in the Russian Premier League. Understandably, such an act caused outrage among the Russian public and was roundly condemned. However, a Duma representative, Gennady Gudkov, stated that the perpetrators could only be fined under the current legislation, being seemingly unaware of the proposed bill that seeks to criminalize precisely such actions. Indeed, should this bill be adopted, its main brunt will likely be directed not at individuals but at ‘hostile’ states. As such it will just serve as another weapon in the growing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, in which history is just another battlefield.

THE NEW GAS DEAL: THREATS AND RISKS FOR UKRAINE

Katja Malyhina

The harshest dispute in the history of the “gas wars” between Russia and Ukraine is over. On January 19, in Moscow, the Ukrainian energy supplier “Naftogaz Ukrainy” and its Russian counterpart “Gazprom” signed a new gas deal for 2009-2019. According to the agreement, Ukraine received a 20% discount on the negotiated gas price in 2009, which corresponds to the average European level. The fee for gas transit paid by Russia remained, however, unchanged from 2008 at US $1.7 cubic meters per 100 kilometers.

Introduction

Are there really any winners in this war? Ukraine’s sagging economy has become even more weakened due to the gas dispute with its neighbor. A number of large industrial companies, including the Odessa port plant and the chemical group “Stirol”, were shut down because Russia suspended its gas supplies to Ukraine. However, Russia has also suffered some damages. According to some estimates, Gazprom has endured financial losses of up to $1.5-2 billion. Limitation of Gazprom’s foreign exchange gains has strengthened devaluation tendencies in Russia. On January 20, the Russian ruble dropped to its lowest value in a decade (RUR32.2 to US$1). A number of European gas companies are seeking reimbursements from Gazprom for the halt in gas supplies. The most important consequence, however, is that the gas conflict essentially undermined the images of both Russia and Ukraine in the eyes of the European community. The President of the EU Commission Jose Manuel Barroso recently questioned the reliability of the both countries as energy suppliers to the EU.

Because of huge financial losses and Ukraine’s lack of compliance Moscow took a very tough position concerning future gas relations with Ukraine. The signed agreement has already tightened the prolonged political conflict in Kiev. President Viktor Yushchenko heavily criticized the contracts that were negotiated by Premier Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Meanwhile, Tymoshenko called the conditions “unique.” But what makes new agreements really “unique”, and what impact will they have on Ukraine?

“Unique” Conditions

According to Tymoshenko, the gas contracts are unique because for the first time they were signed directly between the energy companies Gazprom and Naftogaz without any intermediary. Also, another precedent, the gas deal will regulate gas relations between Russia and Ukraine for the long term instead of annual negotiations. Finally, the gas prices for Ukraine are now tied to oil prices, following the example of European countries. Undoubtedly, the elimination of the dubious intermediary “RosUkrEnergo” (RUE) from the gas trade is a positive result for Ukraine. However, the result should not be solely attributed to the active endeavors of Tymoshenko. Gazprom was also interested in this decision. With the aim to reduce the profitability of the Nabucco project, Russia increased prices for gas from Central Asia, which made any intermediary services unprofitable.

The removal of the intermediary seems to be the only positive outcome for Ukraine from the new gas deal. The increase of gas prices to market levels from 1 January 2009 is a very unfavorable result. The gas price will be calculated quarterly according to a formula with the basic price of $450 per 1,000 cubic meters. Tymoshenko assured the public that the base price corresponds to the average European gas price for the first quarter of 2009. But if one compares quarterly prices for Ukraine announced recently by Naftogaz with the would-be European quarter average (that is without the 20% discount), then the annual average price for Europe would amount to $316 per 1,000 cubic meters. Gazprom, however, declared recently, that the average gas price for its European customers in 2009 would be $280. As a result, natural gas for Ukraine will be even more expensive than in Europe in the future. Moreover, with the high base price of $450 for Ukraine, Russia can offset the costs of expensive Central Asian gas and profitably sell it to Ukraine. In any case, Russia has done everything to get the utmost benefits from the negotiations.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Tymoshenko did succeed in obtaining relatively low gas prices for the current year. According to Tymoshenko, the annual average price for Ukraine would be $228.8 per 1,000 cubic meters in 2009. The 20% discount granted by Gazprom will not be the only source of low average gas prices for this year. Naftogaz Ukrainy announced that it would buy the lowest amount of gas in the first quarter of 2009, when the gas price for Ukraine will be the highest (only 5 billion cubic meters at a price of $360 per 1,000 cubic meters). Naftogaz also lays claim to 11 bcm of RUE gas stored in Ukraine. RUE owed $1.7 billion to Gazprom for this gas, which was paid off by a complex maneuver: Gazprom made an advance payment for the same amount in lieu of transit fees, which Naftogaz then returned to pay off RUE’s debts. However, the Ukrainian energy company has faced problems with the transfer of ownership rights from RUE in its own country. If the transaction is successfully completed, the price for 11 billion cubic meters of gas would be only $154 per 1,000 cubic meters, which is $25 less than last year.

With all the discounts added together, Ukraine will pay about $9 billion for imported gas this year, while it will get only about $0.6 billion from Russia for gas transit through its territory. The actual amount of about $2.3 billion should be reduced by the aforementioned $1.7 billion, which Gazprom “paid” Naftogaz via RUE’s debt assignment. Leaving the transit rates at the same level as in 2008 and switching to the gas prices formula re-calculation illustrate the asymmetry of the contracts. It turns out that a 20% discount on gas prices comes together with a discount in around 60% on transit fees. Such a discrepancy will also remain over the next year, when the transit rate will be calculated according to the aforementioned formula. Gazprom has already announced that the price for transit will be about $2.66 per 1,000 cubic meters per 100 kilometers in 2010. For comparison, the average transit fees in Europe are around $4. According to the Ukrainian experts’ estimates, transit rates should be increased to US $5.11, in order to cover costs of the pipeline system. As a result, Ukraine subsidizes the transit of Russian gas.

The asymmetry of the contracts has also been emphasized by the Secretariat of the President. On the one hand, Ukraine is obliged to continue the transit of Russian gas even in the case of bilateral dispute, while Russia has the right to stop its supplies if needed. On the other hand, Ukraine will cooperate with Russia on the principle “take-or-pay”. This means that Ukraine is obliged to pay for the entire amount of gas specified in the contract, regardless of the amount actually consumed. At the same time, Russia may alter the volumes of gas transit and, consequently, their payment as it wishes. So another principle works here: “We pay only for actually transited gas”. Another positive development for Russia is the increased presence of Gazprom at the Ukrainian gas market. Founded in the spring of 2008, a subsidiary of Gazprom, “Gazprom sbyt Ukraina”, will get 25% of the Ukrainian gas market, equivalent to about 13.5 billion cubic meters. In 2008 the company was allowed to sell only 7.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

If Ukraine fails to pay on time, it will be immediately transferred to a 100% advance payment. According to the Secretariat of the President, Russia has developed such a scheme especially for Ukraine, as there is no other European country where such a clause exists. Overall, the asymmetry in the contracts shows that the political component still plays an important role in gas relations between Russia and Ukraine. Relations between two business parties are built according to the mutually beneficial conditions.

Impact on the Economy

Ukraine has thus signed long-term contracts on very disadvantageous conditions, which will adversely affect the already deplorable state of the Ukrainian economy. Taking into account the increased prices for imported gas, Naftogaz Ukrainy will have to increase prices for all consumer groups in the domestic market. Ukrainian industrial companies already paid a price of $300-330 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas in 2008, owing to various surcharges. However, 2008 was also a record year in terms of prices on Ukrainian products. Ukrainian companies, after all, were able to pay high gas prices and even get profits. But if gas prices for this year stay at least at the level of the previous year, the Ukrainian economy might encounter enormous problems of maintaining competitiveness. To prevent this scenario, Ukrainian politicians will need to continue subsidizing Naftogaz Ukrainy from the state budget. The budget for 2009 provides support for Naftogaz in the amount of about $0.9 billion in comparison with more than $1 billion used for this purpose in 2008. Under changing circumstances, this amount is likely to be increased again. The amount of state subsidy to Naftogaz will increase alone due to the fact that consumer gas prices were tied to the official exchange rate by the end of the year. While Naftogaz buys gas from Russia in U.S. dollars, it sells the fuel in Ukrainian hryvnya (UAH) on the domestic market. Devaluation of the UAH consequently leads to a further increase in subsidies. All this will provide an additional fiscal burden.

In future, it will be very difficult for Ukraine to pay for the imported gas on time. Last year Naftogaz was able to pay back its debt to Gazprom only because the company received loans from state-owned banks. The exchange rate broke down the day after Naftogaz bought in one transaction almost $1 billion from the National Bank of Ukraine at the end of 2008. Thus, if such practices are repeated, the further devaluation of the UAH and rising debt of the public funds are not excluded. Moreover, a threat of advance payment means that Ukraine would have to provide a significant part of its state budget for the payments to Gazprom, before it is taken up by taxes and customs.

The difficult financial situation of Naftogaz also complicates the problem of timely payment for gas bills. Naftogaz has been constantly on the verge of bankruptcy in recent years. The hope to improve the financial situation of the company by eliminating the intermediary is not justified. Even after the exclusion of RUE, Naftogaz may increase its presence on the gas market in the best case from 50% to 75% (25% is reserved for “Gazprom Sbyt Ukrainy”) and thus its revenue would be increased only by a quarter. But even this modest increase in revenue could be relinquished by decreasing demand for gas from industrial enterprises, which plan to buy only 24 billion cubic meters of natural gas instead of the usual 30 billion. It therefore seems quite unlikely that Naftogaz will be able to raise its income above last year’s $7 billion. In addition, many non-industrial consumers pay their gas bills with delays. Their common obligations to Naftogaz for the years 1998 – 2008 amount to approximately $0.8 billion. The debt of Naftogaz itself amounts to $9 billion, while about $2 billion has to be repaid this year. That is why one might expect a huge budget deficit of Naftogaz by the end of the year.

The one positive note for the economy of Ukraine might be the following. Because of the high gas prices, Ukraine will likely be forced to take appropriate energy saving measures. The Ukrainian economy is in general 2-2.5 times more energy-intensive than industries in Europe. In response to the crisis, some steel companies have already begun to replace natural gas with coke in their production. If Ukraine manages to reduce its energy needs, it could sell its own produced gas to Europe. Russian gas does not come into question because the re-export of this gas is prohibited. All these trends confirm the gloomy forecasts for the economic situation in Ukraine, which leads the world in the fall of industrial production, inflation, devaluation of national currency, and the decline of stock indices. Therefore, there is a high probability of default in Ukraine, according to the new UN report on the global economic situation.

New Gas Conflict Possible

A possible reason why the gas war between Ukraine and Russia was so intense in January 2009 is that Russia tried to realize the so-called “Belarusian scenario” in Ukraine. Two years ago, Belarus and Russia signed a five-year contract for the supply and transit of gas. Under the agreement Belarus switches to EU pricing levels in 2011. Until that time a discount system operates. In return for price concessions, Gazprom acquires a 50% share of the Belarusian pipeline system “Beltransgaz” by the 2010. Currently, Gazprom owns 25% of this company.

For Ukraine, too, a gradual transition to European gas prices within three years was initially foreseen. This was reflected in the memorandum signed in October 2008 between Putin and Tymoshenko. It is not excluded that Putin once again called for the Ukrainian pipeline system to be privatized or rent for a long term during the negotiations on the new gas contract this winter. However, according to Ukrainian legislation, the privatization of the pipeline system is prohibited. In addition, the system has great significance for national security of Ukraine. Indeed, Gazprom could become a monopolist over gas supply to Europe in every respect with the Ukrainian pipelines as Gazprom controls, or will control in the near future, all other transit routes of Russian gas to the EU. That is why Ukraine wants neither to sell nor to rent Russia its pipelines. Even the gas war at the beginning of this year did not force the Ukrainian authorities to surrender to Gazprom. Although Putin again appealed to the Europeans for an international gas consortium on common control of Ukraine’s pipeline system, Ukraine refused this proposal.

It is possible that, unlike Belarus, Ukraine agreed to the accelerated transition to the European market prices precisely for these reasons. Thus, “the Belarusian scenario” lost its relevance and the Kremlin has now to search for a new strategy. But what the “energy weapon” could not achieve could be perhaps attained through Ukraine’s falling deep into debt. The world economic crisis arrived just at the right time for the application of this tactic.

Disadvantageous conditions resulting from new gas contracts and the threat of economic collapse of Ukraine increase the likelihood of a renewed gas dispute. This could happen in two different ways.

1) Under the terms of the treaty, Russia has the right to halt its gas supplies to Ukraine if the latter does not pay on time. This step, however, could lead to technical problems with gas transit to Europe. In that case, the events at the beginning of 2009 would be repeated. The only difference would be that all the blame for delivery failure and responsibility for the resulting problems would be laid on Ukraine. In this way, Ukraine gets entrapped by the signed contract.

2) Russia would not halt gas supplies, but rather allow debts and fines to accumulate. Then Ukraine would probably be unable to refinance its gas debts. At some point Gazprom would try to acquire the Ukrainian pipeline system in exchange for debt forgiveness. There is already such a precedent: in the late 1990s Russia exchanged Ukraine’s gas debt for the long-term lease of Sevastopol naval base to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. To avoid such pressure from the Russian side, Ukraine could declare default. However, together with its inability to pay back debts, Ukraine might face difficulties in meeting its obligations on gas transit to Europe. In this case, Putin would set the question of the gas consortium high on the agenda again.

In conclusion, no matter how the situation develops, Russia has gained a position of strong advantage.

First published at “Ukraine-Analysen №50″, p. 5-9.

Genocide or not, Stalin starved millions to death and Soviet regime concealed for 54 years

By David Marples

Highly politicized Holodomor doesn’t hide the fact that ethnic Ukrainian dimension was present

This month marks the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian famine, known as the Holodomor, or death by hunger. [In Ukraine, the official annual commemoration is the fourth Saturday in November]. Many governments, including those of Canada and the United States, have recognized the famine as an act of genocide by Stalin’s regime against Ukrainians.

Ukrainian president Victor Yushchenko has issued a bill that would make it a criminal offense to deny that the famine was genocide. After 75 years, we know much about this tragedy, but the academic community has yet to reach a consensus on the issue. A majority of Western scholars — at least judging from published articles and books — denies that Stalin’s intention was to kill Ukrainians, per se, and maintains that he targeted the Soviet peasantry as a whole. Thus they deny an ethnic dimension.

For example, in his acclaimed 2007 book on life under Stalin, The Whisperers, British historian Orlando Figes writes that the Soviet regime “was undoubtedly to blame for the famine. But its policies did not amount to a campaign of ‘terror-famine,’ let alone of genocide … ” Harvard University’s Terry Martin and the University of Amsterdam’s Michael Ellman have expressed the same opinion.

We may never know how many died of starvation in 1932-33. Yushchenko and others speak of 10 million, or about a third of the population of Ukraine. However, more reliable estimates in Ukraine and elsewhere suggest that the death toll was three to five million, still a truly staggering figure.

It is problematic for scholars when issues become heavily politicized before definitive conclusions have been reached. The Soviet regime denied the existence of the famine for 54 years. Communists in Ukraine reject the notion that Moscow turned on Ukrainians, as do Russia and several western countries.

However, Yushchenko has made the Holodomor the central event in the history of modern Ukraine. It is a divisive one because of the association of the U.S.S.R. with modern Russia. Implicitly, it is alleged that Russia is responsible for the deaths of millions of Ukrainians. Russian president Dmitry Medvedev demurs, and the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn argued that famine occurred also in Russia as well as among ethnic Russians, Jews and Germans resident in Ukraine.

However, archival evidence suggests that the ethnic dimension of the famine was always present. Soviet Ukraine in the 1920s had been allowed to develop its own culture and institutions under a policy known as “indigenization.” By the early 1930s, the Soviet authorities were very concerned by the results. Led by the commissar of education and former colleague of Lenin, Mykola Skrypnyk, the republic was distancing itself from Russia.

National “deviationism” in Ukraine was linked by Stalin with the danger of new intervention from Poland, regarded as a hostile neighbor since the war of 1919-20. He wrote in a letter to his colleague Lazar Kaganovich, party leader of Ukraine in the 1920s, that he feared that “we might lose Ukraine” and that Polish leader Josef Pilsudski would exploit dissatisfaction in the republic.

Added to these volatile elements, the Soviet regime began rapidly to collectivize farms starting in 1929. Ukraine was among the first republics to be collectivized. In Kazakhstan, a third of the peasantry (about one million people) died by 1931. Stalin’s goal was “to liquidate the kulaks (rich peasants) as a class.” Many so designated destroyed their livestock rather than give it up to the new collective farms. The countryside became a war zone in which millions were dispossessed, with many deported to Siberia or the Far North.

After collectivization, state grain quotas were imposed on the farms. Grain was taken before the farmers could feed themselves and their families, and quotas were raised sharply in Ukraine, despite a poor harvest in 1931 in particular. Stalin, who used the grain to feed the growing urban population as well as the Red Army, appointed Extraordinary Grain Commissions in several regions. Vyacheslav Molotov led the one in Ukraine. When the grain ran out, Molotov demanded that the commissions take all food from the villages, which were stripped bare as though a plague of locusts had descended on them.

Peasants could not travel to towns or cross borders to obtain food after 1932, as they were not assigned passports like the rest of the population. In January 1933, Ukraine’s border with North Caucasus was closed. Ukraine’s leadership in Kharkiv, the capital at the time, was distraught. Most Ukrainian Communists blamed “kulaks” and nationalists for the starvation in villages. Stalin then sent his own plenipotentiary, Pavel Postyshev, to Kharkiv to purge the dithering leaders. Later all these figures either died during the purges or, like Skrypnyk, took their own lives.

The mass deaths of peasants were concealed from the public with the collusion of some western journalists and diplomats. Many prominent figures – including George Bernard Shaw, and Sidney and Beatrice Webb – reported that this ravaged land was in fact a Communist utopia. Walter Duranty of The New York Times lied systematically to Americans about the situation in the Soviet countryside.

The link between the Ukrainian famine and external events is clear. In January 1933, Hitler had come to power in Germany, adding another dire threat to Stalin’s regime. Ukrainian nationalists, Poles, Hitler and Stalin’s chief enemy, Leon Trotsky, all feature in Stalin’s correspondence and party documents as threats to Soviet security.

Whether or not this catastrophe was premeditated – and we may never find a “smoking gun’’ – Stalin, Molotov and other Soviet leaders deliberately starved their own people and then concealed this atrocity from the outside world.

(Kyiv Post, 26 November 2008)

Against the ‘nationalist’ interpretation. Russia’s response to the commemoration of the Ukrainian Holodomor

By Ilya Khineiko

For a long time, Russian political elites have been skeptical and increasingly irritated by the attempts of the Ukrainian government to raise international awareness of the 1932-1993 Great Famine in Ukraine, the Holodomor. The simmering tensions came to the fore this month when Ukraine commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor. While Europe and North America expressed their sympathy and sent official condolences, Russia has engaged in what can be called an anti-Holodomor campaign at the highest political level.

In October, the Ukrainian Foreign ministry accused Russia of using “pressure and blackmail” to prevent Ukraine from putting the issue of Holodomor for consideration by the UN General Assembly as an act of genocide against Ukraine. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev turned down Ukraine’s invitation to attend the commemorative events in Kyiv on November 22. Moreover, he weighed in on the historical discourse of the Ukrainian Famine in a letter sent to President Viktor Yushchenko a week earlier, outlining Russian objections to the Ukrainian interpretation of Holodomor. Furthermore, on November 17 and 21 two “alternative” historical conferences on Holodomor were held in Moscow and Kharkiv respectively. The Russian delegation included the noted Moscow expert, Sergey Markov, and the well known ‘anti-revisionist’ Russian historian Aleksandr Dyukov. The Ukrainian side was represented by the who’s who of the pro-Russian political camp, such as Nikolay Azarov from the Party of Regions, the controversial mayor of Kharkiv Mikhail Dobkin, and the former head of the presidential administration under Leonid Kuchma, Dmytro Tabachnik. According to the Ukrainian internet portal RUPOR, the conference was sponsored by the Russian government commission for the affairs of compatriots abroad, which in turn is believed to be connected to the Russian foreign intelligence agency.

This is a brief recap of events, and we shall now examine the substantive content of this campaign. The Russian position laid out in the aforementioned letter by President Medvedev can be summed up as follows.
- The Famine of 1932-33 did take place.
- It was caused by a combination of drought and the disastrous consequences of the policy of forcible collectivization, which was carried out throughout the Soviet Union.
- The Famine was not directed against any particular nationality
- The current Ukrainian interpretation of Holodomor is being used for political purposes and is aimed to drive a wedge between Russian and Ukrainian peoples.

A similar position was articulated during the conference in Kharkiv. Writing on his personal blog, a political scientist from Belarus, Yuri Shevtsov, who took part in the conference noted that the only two points of contention raised by the participants that differed from the official Ukrainian interpretation of the famine were the issue of recognition of Holodomor as genocide of the Ukrainian people as well as a need for a more nuanced assessment of the policy of collectivization. Interestingly, Yuri Shevtsov is the author of a book about the ideology of Holodomor. Gleb Pavlovsky, a self-aggrandizing pro-Kremlin spin-doctor, wrote a foreword to the book and, by the author’s own admission ordered and sponsored its writing and subsequent release . According to Yuri Shevtsov, current attempts by the Ukrainian government to promote the genocidal interpretation of the Famine must be viewed in a broader Eastern European context of the reassessment of the Second World War. The governments of Ukraine, the Baltic States and several other Eastern European countries have sought to rehabilitate their own Nazi collaborators by arguing a (false) moral equivalence between Nazism and Communism. (Interestingly enough, Mr. Shevtsov’s list of such collaborators includes not only the SS units from the Baltic countries but also the UPA and the Polish Home Army). He also sees the ‘ideology of Holodomor’ in socio-economic terms linking it to radical (neo-liberal) market reforms carried out in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism with its unabashed individualism and aversion to “any form of social solidarity” that in turn can be traced to the peasant rejection of modernity. Finally, he warns that the conflict between the ‘crypto-Nazi’ East European regimes and Russia over the interpretation of the WWII and Soviet communism threatens the project of European integration because “without Russia European unity can never be stable”.

It is hardly surprising, given the circumstances of its appearance, that Yuri Shevtsov’s polemical invective avoids altogether any discussion of how the denunciation of the concept of Holodomor fits with the current trends in the post-Soviet historiography of the Soviet period, particularly the role of Stalin. In an attempt to provide a more ‘objective’ assessment of the Soviet period, unlike the excesses of the perestroika and the Yeltsin era, the Putin regime seeks to promote a wholly new vision of Stalin as an effective manager who sought to transform the USSR into an industrial society. Such a concept is presented at the web site of the Russian ministry of Education. Predictably, its authors deny the organized character of the famine and reject its characterization as deliberately directed against any ethnic or social group.

It is not hard to see that such ‘pragmatic’ rehabilitation of Stalinism, from which the rejection of the Ukrainian interpretation of Famine logically follows, serves as an implicit legitimization of the contemporary political regime in Russia. Indeed, it becomes possible to justify the creeping authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin by pointing out its effectiveness and arguing that, just like it was in Stalin’s case, under present historical circumstances there could be no alternative to the current political course. Ukraine, with its fledging but functioning democracy presents not only a subversive example of a different approach to the common Soviet past but also the way to deal with the challenges of the present. Perhaps that helps to understand the reasons why the Russian President has decided to jump into a historical debate with his Ukrainian counterpart and why the Russian state is willing to invest considerable resources to debunking the dangerous ‘myth of the Holodomor’.

Divided nation is its own worst enemy in countering Russia

by David Marples, Special to Kyiv Post
Sep 03 2008, 23:31

Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations may signal the demise of Georgia. It also raises serious questions about future relations with Ukraine.

That threat cannot be dismissed as fanciful or far­fetched as in the past. Russia’s foreign policy in what it calls its “near abroad” has changed dramatically in the past month. Borders are no longer sacrosanct, and Russia has not hesitated to use its monopoly of gas supplies to Ukraine as a political weapon in the past. Ukraine is not blind to the new situation, but it is, in many respects, unprepared for the different forms of potential conflict.

The critical area is Crimea and, in particular, the port of Sevastopol. When Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko refused to extend the lease on the port to the Russian Black Sea fleet beyond 2017, he ignited a new conflict with the northern neighbor. Yushchenko has also demanded that the annual rent Russia pays for its two bases, $98 million, be increased significantly.

Last month in Sevastopol, there was a substantial protest of ethnic Russian members of the Russian Bloc, the most powerful political party on the peninsula. Led by Vladimir Tyunin, they were demanding that Crimea become part of the Russian Federation.

That demand is hardly new. In the early 1990s, former Crimean president Yuri Meshkov ignited a similar movement and promised a referendum on the issue. The Ukrainian government acted firmly to quell the separatists and abolished the post of Crimean president.

Rumors abound that Russia is issuing passports to the majority group of ethnic Russians, just as it did to South Ossetians and Abkhazians in Georgia. Prominent Russian statespersons, including Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, frequently visit Sevastopol and demand that it be returned to Russia.

Added to the mix are the Crimean Tatars, deported by Josef Stalin in 1944-­45, but permitted to return under Gorbachev and now comprising about one­sixth of the population. The relationship between the Tatars and the government in Kyiv is amicable, but relations with Russians who own most of the former Tatar lands and property are volatile.

In 2004, when the Orange Revolution took place, eventually bringing Yushchenko into office, two regions of Ukraine – Donetsk and Luhansk – threatened to leave Ukraine with support from Russia. The two regions, centers of the coal, steel and chemicals industries, provided overwhelming support to the candidacy of former prime minister Viktor Yanukovych. They have large populations of ethnic Russians comprising majorities in the major cities.

Since the population as a whole is Russian speaking, there is no ethnic tension. But the Regions Party, which dominates eastern Ukraine, has a radically different perception of the country than the Orange parties currently in office. It is backed by Ukraine’s richest and most powerful oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, and supports warm relations with Russia and close ties with the European Union, while strongly opposing Ukraine’s request to join NATO and Yushchenko’s support for Georgia.

After Russia’s brutal defeat of Georgian forces, both Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko visited the Donbas (to Donetsk and Luhansk respectively). They were not co­ordinated visits, but the timing seemed notable. Both leaders wished to ensure that they have a voice in a formerly hostile voting area.

Today, the key issue is the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev have indicated that they are prepared to revise formerly recognized borders. The Russian government is willing to support and sow disaffection in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, as well as in the Prydnistrova region of Moldova.

However, Ukraine tends to be its own worst enemy. Though its government has requested NATO membership, most residents oppose it. The Regions Party insists that no membership can take place without a referendum, the result of which hitherto has been a foregone conclusion.

Despite two recent elections, the Ukrainian parliament is so badly divided that it could not even pass the 2008 budget before the summer recess. Yushchenko has undermined every reform initiative of Tymoshenko. In turn, the ruling Orange coalition’s majority is down to two seats.

Perhaps most revealing of Ukraine’s predicament is the low standing in the polls of the president and his party. A poll conducted between Aug. 8 and 24 found that, had a parliamentary election been held at that time, 23.4 percent of respondents would have backed the Tymoshenko Bloc and 20.3 per cent the Regions Party. Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine and People’s Self­Defense Coalition and the Communists had 4.6 percent.

In terms of the popularity of the potential presidential candidates for the 2010 election, Tymoshenko leads with 24 per cent, followed by Yanukovych with 20. Yushchenko’s 7 percent makes him the least popular leader in Europe at a time when Ukraine’s economy is as strong as it has ever been.

Ukraine’s politicians need to focus on priorities. A coalition government to ensure internal unity seems to be a logical first step. Yushchenko cannot lead Ukraine without public support as the country enters its 18th and most critical year of independence.

RUSSIA AND UKRAINE DISPUTE OVER SEVASTOPOL

David Marples

At the entrance to Sevastopol harbor a giant monument commemorates the city’s attainment of “hero” status during the Second World War. Closer to the shore one sees a blue-yellow Ukrainian flag surrounded by the Russian tricolor, which flies from all the taller buildings. Sevastopol, it appears, has an identity crisis and is claimed by two countries: Ukraine, its present owner, and Russia, its former one.

The city was founded by Empress Catherine II in 1783 following Russia’s southern expansion and annexation of the Crimean peninsula. By the mid-19th century it was the site of the most serious European conflict in several decades, when Britain, France, and Turkey joined forces against Russia and laid siege to the great port for more than a year. In the nearby suburb of Balaklava, a suicidal British attack based on misunderstood orders is remembered as the “charge of the Light Brigade.”

Russia was defeated in this war, Sevastopol fell, and for the next fourteen years Russia was not allowed to construct any fortifications or bases in the area of the Black Sea. Under Alexander II, Russia eventually renounced this treaty.

During the Second World War, German and Romanian forces also laid siege to the port, which resisted staunchly. Stalin was to reward the city for its endurance but was incensed at what he perceived as collaboration by the Crimean Tatars and later in the war he deported them en masse to the east. Only in the 1980s were they permitted to return.

The history of the great port, in short, is one of violence and conflict. Virtually every corner has a monument or dedication to one of the wars it endured.

In 1954, to mark the 300th anniversary of the so-called Treaty of Friendship between Ukraine and Russia at Pereyaslav–the goal was to prevent Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s Cossack army from being overrun by the Poles–Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev made Ukraine a gift of the Crimean peninsula. Ostensibly that gift also included Sevastopol. When Ukraine became independent in 1991, it also laid claim to the city as well as the Soviet Black Sea fleet. Russia demurred and serious conflict ensued.

In May 1997 that dispute was resolved temporarily by a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine that seemed comprehensive. The fleet by then was already divided–Russia had 83% of the warships–and the Russians agreed on a 20-year lease of three main harbors and two airstrips for a payment of about $100 million. The treaty stated expressly that Sevastopol belonged to Ukraine.

Many Russian leaders have never accepted the loss of Catherine’s port. In early June, Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov demanded the withdrawal of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol from Ukraine and their transferal to Russia. His comments, which earned him a ban from traveling to Ukraine, followed a statement from the Russian parliament that Ukraine’s potential entry into NATO would terminate the 1997 Friendship Treaty. Ukraine is concerned also about territorial violations in exercises involving the sailors. The latter are also housed thanks to subsidies from Moscow.

On June 24, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, clearly following directions from President Viktor Yushchenko, declared that the lease on Sevastopol would not be renewed and the Russian Fleet must leave the city by May 29, 2017.

There is another dispute concerning the possible expansion of the Russian fleet. At its peak in the 1980s the Black Sea Fleet had over 630 warships and submarines with a maximum of 70,000 sailors and other personnel. Today the fleet is a shadow of its former self with 35 warships and 11,000 personnel. Russia would like to increase those figures respectively to 100 and 25,000, which it claims is permissible by the terms of the 1997 treaty. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, on the other hand, claims that no increase in warships is allowed.

From Ukraine’s perspective it is illogical to raise the size of the Russian fleet prior to its withdrawal in less than nine years’ time. Russia claims the fleet is vital to its national interests. It pays for the lease through the cancellation of Ukraine’s energy debts and would likely demand immediate payment were the fleet ejected. It has begun construction of a new naval base on the eastern seaboard at Novorossiisk but the location is less ideal and lacks the spacious harbors of Sevastopol.

The city itself is composed predominantly of ethnic Russians (over 70%) and is virtually 100% Russian speaking. It was a closed city during the Soviet period and close to a weapons base, the remains of which are visible on the hillside overlooking the port. In elections it has consistently backed the pro-Russian Regions Party led by Viktor Yanukovych.

The problem has no easy solution. Sevastopol is a cradle of Russian imperial ambitions and of Russian “military glory.” It was founded by Russia. But legally Crimea, though autonomous, is Ukrainian. And Ukraine’s strategic interests–at least as long as Yushchenko remains president–are with the West and NATO, membership of which is anticipated in the near future.

Under such circumstances, implicitly at least, the Russian Black Sea Fleet would form a part of a hostile military bloc and occupy the same port as the smaller Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet. Could it be evicted physically if the Russian government refuses to remove? While Ukraine remains outside NATO it seems unlikely. It seems equally implausible that the two countries would go to war over the status of the city and its fleet. But time is running out for a solution.

(This article appeared originally in the EDMONTON JOURNAL, 28 June 2008)

Ukraine’s Fast Track to NATO Too Quick for Many in Nation

David Marples

Ukraine has been accepted as the latest member of the World Trade Organization after fifteen years of negotiations. WTO membership is expected to accelerate Ukraine’s prospects of joining the European Union. Further, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has requested that Ukraine be permitted to participate in the Membership Action Plan (MAP), and ultimately to be accepted as a full member of NATO. What has been the impact of these events and what are the likely consequences?

WTO membership should bring some benefits to the Ukrainian economy, particularly for the steel industry, which faced prohibitive export tariffs from EU countries hitherto. The resulting free competition and reduction of barriers are expected to boost industrial growth and ensure the production of more high quality products in this nation of 46 million. However, it may also increase foreign competition in a number of sectors, such as banking and machine building. Ukraine’s acceptance preceded that of Russia, which is on the waiting list. Officially Ukraine supports Russian membership, since problematic issues such as Russian gas prices could then be resolved under the WTO umbrella rather than bilaterally.

There should be no problems with the Ukrainian parliament’s ratification of WTO membership. The same cannot be said of the bid to take part in MAP, which has aroused angry responses from the Party of Regions and from Russia. Over the past week, MPs from the large opposition party have blocked the rostrum in the Rada, refusing to allow debate on the issue of NATO membership. Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych has stated that on this issue there can be no compromise, membership is inconceivable without a national referendum, and a majority of Ukraine’s residents are firmly opposed to the country joining the defensive alliance.

For Russia too, the issue is a thorny one. Russian president Vladimir Putin is still smarting from Poland’s agreement to accept a US anti-missile base on its territory which, allied with a radar station in the Czech Republic, would serve as an interception point for missiles aimed at the United States by a rogue state (the inference is Iran). Russia has accepted NATO membership of former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States. Ukraine is a different matter entirely.

Putin, who is due to step down as president next month, points out that whereas Russia has dismantled military bases in areas like Cuba and Vietnam, the United States has established new sites in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, in addition to the anti-missile site slated for Poland. NATO’s eastward expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia is seen as a bid to surround Russia with hostile bases and to commence a new arms race.

Ukraine is a particularly sensitive case for Russia. Under Putin, Russian-Ukrainian relations were very close prior to the Orange Revolution in 2004, at which time Yanukovych, Russia’s choice for president, was defeated in a third run-off election. Though Putin’s likely successor Dmitry Medvedev has not engaged in anti-Western rhetoric, he is expected to echo Putin’s concerns over new perceived threats to Russian security.

NATO leaders, who meet in Bucharest in April, have welcomed the potential membership of Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer noted that Russia’s protests would not be a factor when making a decision whether to accept Ukraine. The rationale behind further NATO expansion, however, has rarely been outlined. The implication is clearly that new members require protection from a real or potential external enemy, which could only be Russia. The latter country has not helped its case by its belligerence toward its neighbors. Estonian president Toomas Ilves stated recently that in making a decision on the future membership of Ukraine and Georgia, NATO members should not give into Russian threats and blackmail.

The danger for Ukraine lies in the precarious position of the Tymoshenko government. With a majority of just two deputies, it has embarked on a campaign to integrate Ukraine with Euro-Atlantic structures without further delay, including membership of the EU, which ostensibly has been boosted by WTO membership. But it is not in a position to join NATO without alienating a large segment of the population. While most residents of Ukraine welcome WTO and future EU membership, they do not feel the same way about the country joining the alliance. NATO has a poor reputation associated with past actions in Serbia and the Near East.

Others are concerned about the impact on relations with Russia, a country with which trade turnover totaled $30 billion in 2007–the next highest turnover, with Germany, was $5 billion. Ukraine’s plans to ease dependence on Russian resources by building pipelines from Turkmenistan seem based on wishful thinking rather than reality. Ukraine has a number of serious issues to discuss with post-Putin Russia, including the future of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the port of Sevastopol. And Russia has never hesitated to use its greatest state-owned resource–gas– as a means of maintaining its former Soviet-era ties to Ukraine.

In short, whereas the government’s initiatives toward Europe seem logical, there are grounds to question the wisdom of a fast-track Ukrainian entry into NATO, particularly without a sustained internal debate on the issue first.

[This article was first published on 13 February 2008 by the Edmonton Journal, along with the subtitle: "But other initiatives toward Europe seem logical, enjoy wide appeal." Copyright is owned by CanWest and the article may be cited but cannot be reproduced without
permission]

UKRAINIANS SHUN NATO, SUPPORT TIES WITH RUSSIA

By David Marples

In what was termed the Orange Revolution of late 2004, protests in the streets of Kyiv forced a rerun of the second round of the presidential election in Ukraine, resulting in the victory of Viktor Yushchenko over his rival Viktor Yanukovych, who was backed by former president Leonid Kuchma and Russian president Vladimir Putin. Both at the time and subsequently, the outcome was perceived as a victory for pro-Western forces in Ukraine over a ruling group that hitherto was oriented toward Russia.

In similar fashion, the parliamentary elections of 2006 also saw a narrow victory for the Orange forces (which later split catastrophically) over the Regions Party led by Viktor Yanukovych. However, two opinion polls that have been conducted in recent weeks suggest that Ukrainian residents are hesitant about deepening ties with the West and opposed especially to NATO, and a substantial number would rather have some form of union with neighbors Russia and Belarus than join the EU.

On 24 July, Interfax Ukraine cited the results of the most recent survey conducted by the Yaremenko Ukrainian Institute of Social Research and the “Social Monitoring” Center between 10 and 18 July. It is based on 2,014 respondents over the age of 18, residing in 132 cities and villages in all regions of Ukraine, and has a margin of error of 1.34-2.24%.

Less than 20% of respondents are in support of Ukraine joining NATO, with 57% opposed, a figure that would seem to preclude any immediate prospects of a referendum on whether to join the military body. About 25% are in favor of joining the EU, whereas 43.4% wish to join a union with Russia and Belarus, and 27% think it better to pursue equal relations with both the EU and Russia. Thus over 70% of those surveyed support some form of close relationship with Russia.

On the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, the attitude is generally benign: 33.5% feel that the existing status of that language should remain as it is currently; 26.4% believe that it should be raised to the status of a state language; 24.7% consider that Russian should be elevated to the second state language in areas where a majority is in favor of this step; and only 11.7% think that Russian should be removed from official communications throughout Ukraine. Thus over 51% support some strengthening of the status of the Russian language in Ukraine.

These results may be compared to those of another poll carried out between 19 June and 2 July by the Ukrainian Sociology Service and Democratic Initiatives Foundation, with 2,000 respondents from all regions and an error margin of under 2.2% and cited by the Kyiv Post. This poll reveals that had the parliamentary elections–scheduled for late September 2007–been held in early July, the East Ukrainian-based Regions Party led by Yanukovych would have won 44% of the vote and gained about 206 seats in the legislature of 450 members. Regions could then have formed a working partnership with the Communist Party and established a majority government. Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc would have formed the opposition.

This same poll also revealed the declining faith of residents of Ukraine in democracy (only 44% feel that it is the best state system), whereas a substantial group–one fifth of respondents–believes that Ukraine would be better off with an authoritarian system. On the question of whether order, democracy, freedom, or liberalism was needed, “order” was the preferred commodity, with 93% in support whereas less than 25% opted for liberalism.

The results of these two polls are both disturbing and revealing. On the one hand, they suggest that the progress of Ukraine toward a Western-style and Western-leaning democracy has been consistently exaggerated by some Western sources. On the other hand, they offer a more accurate account of the way Ukrainians really think. A large plurality or even a small majority of residents of Ukraine prefer closer ties with Russia and have some facility in the Russian language. A similarly substantial portion of the population is skeptical about Western influence, democratic structures, and the way the country has been run since the success of the Orange Revolution.

In truth, the Orange Revolution was not about a pro-Western or pro-Russian orientation at all (Putin’s ill-advised interventions notwithstanding). It was about the way the country had been run for the previous decade, with a spate of political murders, corruption, and muzzling of the media by the Kuchma government.

Ukrainians are not pro-Western today partly because the example set by Western democracies in recent times has hardly provided a model to emulate: beginning with NATO’s attack on Serbia in 1999 and culminating with the invasion of Iraq.

And Ukrainians are for the most part pro-Russian because they see Russia as a strong counterforce to the United States and a nation with which they have more in common than with either the new democracies of Eastern Europe or the long-established democracies that no longer seem capable of providing fitting examples to follow.

Update: Who is behind the leaked protocol on Russian-Ukrainian energy trade? The Ekonomichna Pravda version.

On June 7, Ekonomichna Pravda (EP), the business spin-off of Ukrains’ka Pravda, published an article entitled “Gas Subversion,” which seeks to refute most of the claims made in the Glavred piece discussed in our previous posting. While confirming the authenticity of the leaked document, citing some anonymous insider sources from the Naftogaz of Ukraine, the EP journalist disputes the main message of the Glavred article – namely, that the Ukrainian authorities are about to make serious concessions to Moscow, bringing the country’s energy system under control of the Kremlin.