If you are having trouble reading ePOSHTA, click here.
Якщо Ви маєте труднощі читати еПОШТУ, натисніть тут.



Politically Repressed &
Jailed Political Prisoners in Ukraine

Svoboda: 40 politically repressed & jailed
Tax code protestors: 30 politically repressed
Tryzub: 20 politically repressed
Tymoshenko government: 15 jailed
Students, environmentalists: 20
More below

October 9 жовтня 2011
Vol.12 No. 23

Know someone who'd like a trial copy of ePOSHTA? Send their e-mail address to:
with "Subscription" in the subject line.

In this issue:
  Незалежний Погляд
Send information on social events, conferences, and employment to: events@eposhta.com at least two weeks before the event date. See the guidelines for submitting EVENT announcements.
Links to event postings
  Programs & Conferences
  Програми і Конференції
  Current Affairs
  Ukraine & the World
  Україна і Світ
  Комерційний Вісник
  From Our Mailbox / Blogbox

Who belongs to Europe and who doesn’t?


German Chancellor Angela Merkel: Herr Yanukovych! You have burnt out the third poligraph!

Sviatoslav Karavansky

Today’s politicians, while lobbying the joining of the European Union by a former Russian colony – Ukraine, - like to repeat that Ukraine belongs to Europe.

It is hard to deny this fact. It is true: Ukraine is part of Europe and belongs to Europe not only geographically but mentally also: the Orange Revolution confirmed this.

Does it mean that all political forces in Ukraine belong to Europe?

Unfortunately, it does not. Some of these forces are worlds apart from Europe.

There are forces in Ukraine that demand the granting of the status of official language to the Russian language. This is an anti-European demand, a demand that contradicts the ideals of the EU.

The Russian language was the official language of Ukraine throughout centuries, when Ukraine was a speechless colony of the Russian empire in the form of the monarchy and in the form of the Soviet Union. The Russian rulers used the Russian language to discriminate against the Ukrainian language which was persecuted and banned. The very struggle for the Ukraine’s independence was, in fact, the struggle for the Ukrainian language. So, it was understandable, that even before the legalization of an independent Constitution, the independent Ukrainian government and all its services started to administer in the Ukrainian language. The Ukrainian Constitution, adopted by the parliament in 1996, confirmed this spontaneous decision of the independent lawmakers and granted the status of official language only to one language, to the Ukrainian one.

This was the key decision for the independent nation and the real sign of its independence. The official status of the Ukrainian language was not directed against other languages, spoken in Ukraine, including, of course, the Russian one. Being used by centuries as the only official language, the only language of education and the only language of the elite, the Russian language is widely spread in Ukraine. But granting the status of an official language to the Russian language will be a political step against Ukrainian independence and is supported by the frankly pro-Russian “fifth column”.

The pro-Russian “fifth column” expects to humiliate the very fact of the Ukrainian independence by such a granting. Their dreams to return the “golden” years of the Moscow occupation of Ukraine and to unite the three Slavic nations into one state under, of course, Moscow patronage are behind this language demand.

Let us look at the facts. The Party of Regions, consisting of the members of the former colonial administration in Ukraine who are the main founders and main supporters of this party, gains power in the city of Odessa by the falsification of the voters’ will. And what kind of language policy do they practice?

The Odessa city counsel made a decision that written requests from citizens to the city mayor should be written in Russian language only. Such a decision was passed by the city counsel in times, when the Ukrainian language is the only official language in Ukraine. What would this “regional” city council “decide”, if the Russian language became the second official language, one can imagine from the current un-constitutional decision.

The authority of the Donetsk region closed two Ukrainian schools in the city of Donetsk and one in the city of Makiyivka, despite the protests of the children’s parents, who demanded to grant them the right to teach their children in their mother-language.  

So the granting Russian the status of an official language of Ukraine will be the chance for the former Soviet officials to humiliate and discriminate against, the just freed from the centuries of persecutions, Ukrainian language. The revival of the privileges of colonial times in any free nation is against European ideals. Thus, those who try to revive colonial privileges in Ukraine do not belong to Europe.

The falsifiers of the historical truth do not belong to Europe either. The officials of Ukraine who deny the Stalin’s genocide in Ukraine, including artificial hunger of 1932-33 years, do not belong to Europe.

The falsifiers of the will of the people during the presidential and parliamentary elections do not belong to Europe also.

The minister of education of Ukraine who denies Stalin’s crimes in Ukraine and decreases the use of Ukrainian language in universities does not belong to Europe.

The pocket procurators and judges of Ukraine, who started the politically motivated trials against the opposition leaders don’t belong to Europe.                                            

The smaller judicial officials in the regions who follow the example of their superiors and open spurious cases against the local opposition activists do not belong to Europe.                                                                                                                                        

The MP who copied the red-flag law, passed in the Moscow Duma, to stir ethnic hatred in Ukraine, does not belong to Europe.

All high ranking officials who stir ethnic tensions in Ukraine do not belong to Europe.

The judges who deprived the leaders of Ukrainian Liberation Movement the title of Hero of Ukraine in order to satisfy the desires of the occupiers of Ukraine do not belong to Europe.

The officials of the cities of Ukraine who ban peaceful demonstration of citizens do not belong to Europe.

The minister of domestic affairs who sends the police armed with clubs and tear-gas to disperse peaceful meetings of the citizens does not belong to Europe.

The head of the Secret Service of Ukraine (SBU) who interferes in the work of the cultural and scientific institutions and terrorizes the citizens that criticize the authorities does not belong to Europe.

The persons of high rank who hire killers to kill some journalists that reveal their crimes do not belong to Europe.

The persons of high rank who do everything to hide the crimes of their colleagues caught on tape do not belong to Europe.

The persons of high rank that persecute those citizens who reveal the crimes of some government officials do not belong to Europe.

The parties that invite anti-European persons into their ranks and offer them responsible posts in government do not belong to Europe.

This is not a full list of the creatures that don’t belong to Europe, but who try to attain a decisive voice there.

Will their dreams come true?

Will the ideals of former Ukraine’s occupiers become the ideals of the Free Europe?

Sviatoslav Karavansky is a Ukrainian linguist, poet, journalist, author of samizdat, who spent 31 years in captivity as a dissident of the Soviet regime.

Demjanjuk Post Munich II TOP

Re: Germany: Nazi Probes Reopened

A fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence is individual responsibility for one's actions. In criminal law, this requires that the charges against the accused, and the accused’s responsibility for the crime, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Demjanjuk  case there was no finding of individual culpability, there was instead, a PRESUMPTION of it. There was no finding of voluntariness, there was instead, a PRESUMPTION of it.

That is why this case was a show trial, not a real trial.

Let us be clear. No sensible human being denies the facts of the Holocaust, the loss of 6 million Jewish lives or their suffering, nor the turmoil initiated by Nazi Germany that resulted in the loss of some 50 million lives in World War II. What is being questioned, however, is the role Demjanjuk played in all that.

One of the great attributes of the jurists at Nuremberg was their insistence that the accused have the ability to fairly defend themselves according to the rule of law and legal principles. Though flawed in some ways, such as its failure to prosecute even one Allied war crime, the involvement of a Soviet prosecutor and its attempt to shift the blame for the Katyn Forest massacre of Polish Officers on to the Germans, still, even with such deficiencies noted, the Nuremberg trials sought to abide by the rule of law and to find the accused guilty of INDIVIDUAL responsibility for the crimes committed. Unlike in the Demjanjuk case, in the case of the Nuremberg defendants, there was no doubt about their identity, there was no doubt about their presence where the events took place and there was little doubt about their personal involvement.

The essence of MUNICH II (i.e. the Demjanjuk trial) was to create a stage on which victims of the Holocaust could have another opportunity to present their stories and, at the same time, remind the world of the principal reason for the creation of the Jewish State of Israel, namely, so that never again will any Jew ever lack for a place of refuge. At least the Jewish witnesses involved in the trial were pursuing a noble purpose, albeit through what was an ignoble means. This cannot be said for Germany, however. For Germany, this was a crass and opportunistic attempt to cleanse itself of some of its blame for the Holocaust by diverting it on to non-Germans.

In short, MUNICH II was a place where the rule of law was sacrificed for the sake of political expedience. So certain of Demjanjuk’s guilt were the accusers that there was no need for evidence. It was simply PRESUMED.

Thus, for example, there was no extradition to Germany, but merely deportation from the United States. Why bother with procedural technicalities even if it was a criminal matter and not citizenship?

The existence of doubt about the legitimacy of the Trawniki ID card because of Soviet KGB secret police involvement raised by recently discovered FBI report, was simply dismissed by the court. That matter had already been decided by the court earlier, so why raise it again?

There was no finding of Demjanjuk’s personal involvement in harming anyone. Why bother, that can be inferred on the argument that since Sobibor was a death camp, anyone there was guilty. But can it? Not according to the Holocaust Archive and Research Team who, on their web site, list Erich Lachmann, Heinz-Hans Schutt, Heinrich Unverhau, Robert Juhres,  Ernst Zirke, or Erwin Lambert – as former Sobibor guards who were acquitted.

There was no doubt raised about the reliability or voluntariness of a statement made to the KGB Soviet secret police during an interrogation of Danylchenko, a former Sobibor guard, who claimed to have seen Demjanjuk in the camp. When we need to, we can ignore the history of iniquity of the Soviet KGB. Or can we?

There was no clear evidence of volition on the part of the accused, even IF he was in Trawniki (whose camp Commandant SS Captain Karl Streibel, incidentally, was acquitted of all charges), and even IF he was in Sobibor.

In short there was never any doubt because his guilt was simply PRESUMED.

Munich II was not a demonstration of the rule of law, but of the politicization of the law. How else could one explain the fact that based on the evidence to which the Munich prosecutor’s office evidently had access, they knew, or should have known, that Demjanjuk was not Ivan The Terrible, particularly since in the early 1970s  the Soviets alleged he had been in Sobibor. Instead, they sat silently for two decades while his errant trial in Israel was reported on the front pages of all Western newspapers. Why didn’t the witnesses or prosecutors in Munich step forward to identify Demjanjuk then, not as Ivan The Terrible of Treblinka, but as they later claimed, Demjanjuk of Sobibor. Demjanjuk, who they claimed was an accomplice, to not just a few deaths, but to the deaths of some 27,900 people!

Imagine that. For over two decades a man allegedly responsible for the deaths of 27,900 people, a man whose name was on the front pages of every serious Western newspaper, was never even accused of these crimes until AFTER he was found NOT GUILTY of being Ivan The Terrible. Then, suddenly the Munich prosecutors awoke and realized, no, he was NOT Ivan The Terrible at all. No, instead according to them, he was actually a man who was responsible for 27,900 deaths in Germany. It was only then, over 60 years after these deaths, and despite the fact that he lived NOT in hiding but openly in Cleveland all that time, that they finally identified him as a camp guard at Sobibor.

And why not hold the trials in Munich, the city where Hitler held his beer hall putsch, where the Nazi party was founded, and where it was headquartered during the war — in Munich, the city that hosted the treaty of appeasement with Chamberlain and saw the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics — Yes, in Munich, to add to the political symbolism of the case. 

But why bother to get so worked up about this case and an old man caught up in this historical vortex?  The answer is because of German duplicity in the past and the abdication of a fundamental principle of criminal law that is now about to evolve.

After all, there was no shortage of Nazis to prosecute – no shortage of party members, Nazi government officials, army officers, camp commandants. Why, for example, didn’t Germany prosecute Reinhard Gehlen, the former Nazi chief of eastern front intelligence and the hundreds of other ex-Nazis he gathered in the West German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) that he headed after the war? Germany did not have the stomach to fully prosecute its own transgressors. In fact, its pursuit and conviction of its own Nazi transgressors has been not as impressive. Though German courts investigated over 100,000 cases, only some 6,500 accused were convicted and of these, most received rather light sentences. Furthermore, not long ago, Germany passed legislation that effectively provided an amnesty from prosecution for German Nazis, including SS concentration camp commanders and their German subordinates. But the amnesty did not include Untermenschen like Demjanjuk. And now, latching on to what is coming to be regarded as the “Demjanjiuk precedent”, according to a recent article in the Huffington Post, German prosecutors are about to launch other cases based not on the principle of individual responsibility, but on the basis of guilt by association – guilt by presumption based on the defendant’s alleged mere presence when hideous crimes took place.

The cost of MUNICH II has been that the German judges have once again crossed the same line that Nazi Judges crossed in the 1930s – ignoring basic principles of the rule of law. Back then, the result led to the collapse of the rule of law in Nazi Germany, the outbreak of World War II, the deaths of some 50 million people, and finally ending after the war with the conviction of those same Nazi judges at Nuremberg.

For these reasons, Demjanjuk’s trial was so outlandish, so irregular, and so aberrant that anyone familiar with the norms of the rule of law and the rights afforded ordinary citizens in a free and democratic society should have been and should now be protesting the whole process, instead of celebrating its conclusion. In short, this case was not about the trial of Ivan Demjanjuk. It was about the trial of modern-day Germany, and by extension, since this all started there, of the United States. The verdict is not flattering and I, for one, cannot hold my head high and claim there was a victory. As for the new attempt to prosecute old alleged Nazi war criminals based on this faulty precedent, let them be tried according to the principle of proven individual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – not because we want them to be saved, but because we want to uphold the principles at the root of any society based on the rule of law.

Andriy J. Semotiuk is an attorney practicing in the area of international law focusing on immigration. He is a member of the bars of New York and California in the United States and Ontario and British Columbia in Canada. A former United Nations correspondent who was stationed in New York, Mr. Semotiuk now practices law and resides in Toronto.

Gas transit consortium: pipe modernization or redemption?


Analytical Reference by Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation

On September 26, Ukraine’s Premier Mykola Azarov announced that the Russian leadership finally agreed to review the gas contract with Ukraine. Azarov said the guarantee of this is the agreement that President Viktor Yanukovych made with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Russia’s PM Vladimir Putin on creating a trilateral consortium for the management of Ukraine’s gas transit grid with the participation of Naftogaz Ukrainy, Gasprom and the European Union.

Meanwhile, the Russian side has already denied that it has agreed to making changes in the gas contract and the priority of setting up a gas transport consortium.

Politics and big bucks behind closed doors

Information about the results of talks between Viktor Yanukovych and Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin on September 24 was not immediately made public. Over the next two days after the talks the information vacuum contained only general statements that significant progress has been made, which cast doubt on the actual effectiveness of the recent visit of Ukraine’s president to Moscow. One thing was clear for sure: the talks between the leaders of the two countries were held behind closed doors.

While the further statements of representatives of both sides clarified the results of the talks, they were quite contradictory. In particular, it became quite clear that the concept of a consortium that will manage Ukraine’s gas transport grid (GTG), the creation of which could result in a review of prices that Naftogaz Ukrainy pays for Russian gas, will be the basis of further relations between Ukraine and Russia in the gas sector.

On the one hand, such progress in Ukrainian-Russian relations can be welcomed as at the very least Russia is so far not publicly declaring Ukraine’s joining the Customs Union as a condition for lowering the prices of gas. On the other hand, the possible creation of a gas transport consortium also poses serious threats to Ukraine.

Equal participation or a full takeover?

Given the fact that the head of Gasprom Oleksiy Miller denied that and agreement on setting up a consortium for the management of Ukraine’s GTG was made, the probability of such a scenario is quite high. The words of Ukraine’s Premier Mykola Azarov and the clear desire of the Ukrainian side to be offered a lower price for natural gas that will likely become a reality after the creation of this consortium are testimony to this fact. At the same time, if the idea of a joint venture that will manage Ukraine’s GTG is realized, the main question will be who will participate in it and on what terms.

To be sure, there are very serious doubts as to how realistic the plans announced by official Kyiv are regarding a trilateral consortium. Azarov’s statement about lowering tariffs for the transit of gas through Ukraine territory to the level of production costs clearly contradicts such plans. Indeed, on such conditions Ukraine’s GTG will operate at a loss, which is why it is difficult to imagine that any serious European company will agree to participate in its management.

Accordingly, the only benefit from participating in such a consortium is having control over Ukraine’s gas transit infrastructure, which European companies most likely do not need, though this would fully satisfy the needs of Russia’s Gasprom. In that case, the issue is about the modernization of Ukraine’s GTG, seeing as without profits from the transportation of gas there simply will be no money to cover the cost of such modernization.

Moreover, even if the consortium is set up with the participation of European companies with the management of Ukraine’s GTG being split three ways, the parity could be violated. Industry experts point to the risk that a European company that is either affiliated with Gasprom or its partner could become one of the participants of the joint venture. In this case the de facto management of Ukraine’s GTG will be given into the hands of a Russian energy company that will then have 2/3 control of it. As a result, Ukraine may lose the right to control its GTG, which will mean a significant decrease in proceeds to the national budget and a partial loss of the country’s economic sovereignty. It is quite clear that such a scenario of the course of events totally fits in with the plans of Russia and Gasprom, as well as a certain circle of people inside the Ukrainian government, though this would be unacceptable for Ukraine at large.



After the meeting of Viktor Yanukovych with Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin on Ukrainian-Russian gas relations, serious progress was noted. It is highly likely that very soon the two sides will agree on setting up a consortium to manage Ukraine’s gas transport grid in exchange for a reduction in the prices of Russian gas for Ukrainian consumers.At the same time, the risks of such a scenario are glaringly obvious. Indeed, the joint management of Ukraine’s pipelines could result in their conveyance into ownership by Russia’s Gasprom.On the other hand, the benefits from the lowering of gas prices could be significantly leveled off by a number of other factors, among which is the need to raise gas tariffs for households in order to receive the next loan tranche from the IMF and the non-transparent nature of price-setting in Ukraine’s energy sector.

Will Europe make a mistake? - Part II


Sviatoslav Karavansky

The Ukraine-EU summit, where the joining of Ukraine to the Free Trade Zone agreement will be decided, will be happening very soon.  Such a joining without some preconditions from the side of Europe would be a big economical and political mistake.
Part I: http://www.eposhta.com/newsmagazine/ePOSHTA_111004_CanadaUS.html#fo2


Two words about the ruling coalition

The political forces, united in the ruling coalition, are members of the former Soviet Colonial Administration of Ukraine. Ninety percent of the members of the coalition were (and some still are) members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Shocked by the disintegration of the USSR, these forces  masked themselves at first, hiding their hostile attitudes to the new state. Having contacts with the secret services of the former empire they cherished hope of returning to the former “paradise.” After becoming the rulers of Ukraine, these forces showed their real anti-Ukrainian feelings.

The offensive strategy of the ruling coalition on the Ukrainian independence

The ruling coalition plans to grant official status to the Russian language. This is a hostile act to the Ukrainian independence. President Yanukovych, when expressed such a promise, understood that the fulfilling of it would require falsifying the parliamentary elections because the democratically elected Supreme Counsel will never pass such a pro-Moscow law.  

The Russian language was spread in Ukraine by means of prohibition and humiliation of the native Ukrainian language during centuries. This is undeniable proof of the undemocratic and forceful nature of the language situation in Ukraine. It is not a fault of the Russian language, which is one of the most developed world languages, but the fault of the unlawful practice of the imperial authorities. Giving the Russian language the official status will be the rebirth of the imperial language situation in Ukraine from the times of colonial slavery. Therefore, the demand of the ruling coalition is frankly anti-state and anti-Ukrainian. This demand contradicts the principles of freedom and democracy because the realization of this demand requires the falsification of the people’s will.

Preparing to revive the colonial order in Ukraine

          Waiting for the falsification of the next parliamentary elections, the ruling coalition attacks all national democratic forces of Ukraine. President Yanukovych appointed a contemptible minister of education with a disdain for all things Ukrainian. This minister mandates anti-Ukrainian policy in the field of education, diminishes the sphere of the use of the Ukrainian language in schools, stirs the national hatred, revives the Stalin norms in education, and frankly expresses anti-Ukrainian, pro-imperial ideas. At the same time, the minister of education cancels the university’s independence, rejects European standards of evaluation of students’s skills, and copies imperial practices of falsifying the historical truth, in particular, by denying Stalin’s genocide of Ukraine – the Holodomor.

            During the Yanukovych Presidency, the judicial system became the tool for repressions against the national democratic organizations and their leaders.

The Security Service of Ukraine is copying the practice of repression of the Soviet KGB.

The MP’s from the Party of Regions prepared an anti-Ukrainian language law that foresees to recognize the Russian language as a regional language in thirteen (more than half!) oblasts (provinces) of Ukraine.

The president Yanukovych supported the stirring of the interethnic hatred directed against the title nation by signing the red-flags law, which was first passed in the Moscow Duma.

The persecution of the Ukrainian business has been discussed in Part One of this article.

Political orientation of the Yanukovych administration

The ruling coalition revives the policy of imperial Russia towards subjugated nations. It is known that this policy got two knockouts in the XX century:

1.     The 1917 October Revolution and overthrowing the Czarist autocracy;

2.     The disintegration of the USSR in 1991.

These two historical events prove that the policy of empires, directed to oppress and humiliate the enslaved nations, is doomed to be a failure. To resort to the doomed-by-history policy in XXI century doesn’t correspond to the development of world civilization. This policy leads to social unrests and national revolutions. Such an outcome contradicts the very nature of mankind.

Historical mission of the European Union

The European Union is a unique state formation that united the European nations compelled by their primitive leaders to lead constant bloody wars. The EU is the first successful project of peaceful co-existence of different nations in one state body in history. This epochal structure has a mission to encourage the European, and also the World, nations to follow the values - thanks to which the peaceful co-existence of nations and the progress of civilization became a reality.

Therefore, the EU cannot reject the desire of some not very democratic nations to join the EU. It is the chance for the EU to support and to perfect the weak sprouts of democratic values of these nations. But in order not to be mistaken in the selection of new Union members, the EU must have some preconditions for the mentioned nations before granting them the membership in the EU.

Ukraine is a primary example of a partly democratic nation with a series of pro-imperial and pro-totalitarian backslidings, which is discordant with membership in the EU. These backslidings must be handled before joining the EU.

Preconditions for Ukraine before joining the EU – fixing some pro-imperial backslidings

# 1. The main pro-imperial backsliding supported by the ruling coalition of Ukraine is the granting of official status to the Russian language. This demand united some progressive elements in the ruling coalition with some supporters of pro-imperial, anti-democratic values. These supporters are far from the ideas of friendship of the European nations, from the principles of democracy, from the respect for human rights and the rule of law. The realization of their demand in Ukraine is impossible without falsifications of the next parliamentary elections and without social unrest in the future. Therefore, today’s ruling coalition must refuse this demand before Ukraine joins the Free Trade Zone Agreement. This refusal will guarantee the EU a peaceful and non-violent member of the Agreement in the future.

# 2. To dismiss all state figures who are stirring national hatred in Ukraine.

# 3. To initiate the convening of the International Commission to Establish the truth about the Holodomor - the Stalin genocide of Ukraine, inviting scientists from the EU, the USA and Canada.

# 4. To organize an all-Ukrainian referendum for the decision of rewarding or denying the title of the Heros of Ukraine to leaders of the Ukrainian Liberation Movement: S. Bandera and R. Shukhevych.

Preconditions for Ukraine before joining the EU – fixing some pro-totalitarian backslidings

1. To free all members of the previous government of Y. Tymoshenko and to forward the court cases against them to the Court of the European Union for the final investigation.

2. To stop turning the Security Service of Ukraine into the copy of repressive KGB.

3. To refuse to revive the censorship.

4. To forward the new election law to the Venice Commission of the EU by December 2010.

5.     To take into account all the remarks of the Venice Commission and forward the corrected

election law to the Venice Commission no later than April 2012.

6.     To invite 125 observers from the EU for the next parliamentary elections, so that each oblast’ (province) of Ukraine should have five observers.

7.  To take care of adding to the Constitution a paragraph about two versions of swearing the elected presidents in, in order to guarantee equal rights for all main religious denominations of Ukraine:

a. The elected presidents have to swear on the Bible before religious leaders of all main denominations existing in Ukraine by the order of rotation.

b. The elected presidents have to swear before the head of the Constitutional Court.

The EU should require from Ukraine acceptance of these preconditions in order not to be mistaken in their choice of a new member.

A message to the EU

Since these preconditions recommend observing the 2012 parliamentary elections, it is necessary to postpone the joining of Ukraine to the Free Trade Zone Agreement until November 2012.

In order not to repeat the reckless attitude of the supervision of elections permitted by the EU’S observers for the 2010 local elections, please impart the proper attention to the selection of the observers.

The underdevelopment of the Donbas TOP

Oct. 7, 2011

Alexander Motyl Alexander J. Motyl

A just-released study by the International Center for Future Research has some bad news for southeastern Ukraine. According to the center’s calculations, the quality of life is lowest in a coherent swath of territory running from south to east. Of Ukraine’s 27 provinces, Zaporizhzhya is 22nd, Mykolaiv is 23rd, Kherson is 24th, Luhansk is 25th, Donetsk is 26th, and Dnipropetrovsk is dead last. The two outliers are Kharkiv in the northeast, which is 2nd, and Chernihiv in the north, which is 21st.

Note that the most unlivable part of Ukraine—the southeast in general and the Donbas in particular—is the heart of Viktor Yanukovych country and has the highest concentration of oligarchs and Regionnaires. Coincidence?As you’d expect, Kyiv City is at the top, while the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, with its tourism, comes in 3rd. Visitors to western Ukraine won’t be surprised to learn that it does quite well in the rankings: Ternopil Province is 4th, Lviv is 5th, Chernivtsi is 6th, Ivano-Frankivsk is 8th, Volyn is 10th, Zakarpattya is 11th, and Rivne is 13th.

Since the rankings were based on five criteria—material well-being, education, health, security, and environment—there are some interesting variations. Kyiv City, Crimea, and Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhya, and Donetsk Provinces score well on both well-being and education. In contrast, the western Ukrainian provinces, and just above everyone else in the country, do far better than the southeastern provinces in terms of health, security, and environment. To put it somewhat crudely, the Donbas is an ecological disaster and dangerous slum populated by smart and prosperous folks.

Note that the most unlivable part of Ukraine—the southeast in general and the Donbas in particular—is the heart of Viktor Yanukovych country and has the highest concentration of oligarchs and Regionnaires. Coincidence?

The Donbas was once the jewel in the Stalinist crown of Soviet socioeconomic development—the showcase of Soviet central planning. Twenty years ago, when Ukraine became independent, the industrial southeast was past its prime, but neither had it yet become a slum. That transformation took place in the last two decades—partly as a result of the collapse of central planning, partly as a result of the collapse of the Ukrainian economy in the 1990s, and, last but not least, partly as a result of the region’s political mismanagement and economic exploitation by post-Communist functionaries, corrupt Regionnaires, organized criminals, and rapacious oligarchs.

Those nefarious groups have effectively conspired to promote the Ukrainian industrial heartland’s progressive development into an economic wasteland, ecological nightmare, and social disaster. They’ve done that by appropriating worthwhile assets for themselves, neglecting everything else, and distracting the people with red flags, bogus claims of language discrimination, culture wars, and the like.

The puzzle is not that venal Regionnaires and oligarchs managed to suck the southeast dry, but that the people let them. After all, they’re relatively affluent and well-educated, and relatively affluent and well-educated people are supposed to be capable of recognizing a crook when they see one. So what happened?

If the Regionnaires and oligarchs transform the southeast into Ukraine’s outpost in the third world, locals will face an unenviable choice: accept grinding poverty or get the hell out. Unless, of course, they realize that there’s a third way: kick the Regionnaires out.First, the population of the southeast is and remains highly Sovietized, with cultural values and political aspirations that are fundamentally at odds with modernity—and that means, among other things, effective market relations, rule of law, and democracy. Second, the population is isolated and has difficulty imagining itself in the context of a globalized world, a changing Europe, or, for that matter, even a stagnant Ukraine. And third, the population still regards the Donbas as the apex of civilization and takes umbrage at suggestions that their self-perceptions may be a tad off the mark. In these respects, the Ukrainian southeast is not unlike the American Jim Crow South: wedded to beliefs, practices, and institutions that are outmoded and downright deleterious—to everybody.

But there is also good news, potentially. It’s hard to imagine that smart people won’t eventually decide they can do better than live in a slum run by thugs. Public opinion polls show that southeastern Ukrainians are rapidly losing faith in Yanukovych and the Regionnaires. With any luck, that trend will continue. It should, if only because the long-term well-being of the southeast will be unsustainable if the region does not become livable again—soon.

In a word, time is running out for southeastern Ukrainians. If the Regionnaires and oligarchs transform the southeast into Ukraine’s outpost in the third world, locals will face an unenviable choice: accept grinding poverty or get the hell out. Unless, of course, they realize that there’s a third way: kick the Regionnaires out.

Газотранспортний  консорціум:  модернізація  чи  здача  труби? TOP

Аналітична довідка Фондy «Демократичні ініціативи» ім. Ілька Кучеріва

26 вересня Прем’єр-міністр України Микола Азаров повідомив, що керівництво Росії нарешті погодилося на перегляд газового контракту з Україною. За його словами, запорукою цього стала досягнута під час зустрічі Президента України Віктора Януковича із президентом і прем’єр-міністром Росії Дмитром Медведєвим і Володимиром Путіним домовленість про створення тристороннього консорціуму з управління українською газотранспортною системою за участю українського «Нафтогазу», російського «Газпрому» і Європейського Союзу (ЄС). Російська сторона, втім, уже встигла заперечити і укладення домовленості про зміну газової угоди, і пріоритетність ідеї створення газотранспортного консорціуму.

Кулуарні переговори

Інформація про результати переговорів Віктора Януковича з Дмитром Медведєвим і Володимиром Путіним 24 вересня з’явилася далеко не одразу. Протягом наступних двох днів інформаційний вакуум був заповнений лише загальними фразами про досягнення суттєвого прогресу, що змушувало сумніватися в результативності візиту українського Президента до Москви. Очевидним було одне: перемовини керівників двох держав носили закулісний характер.

Подальші заяви представників обох сторін внесли певну ясність щодо результатів переговорів, хоч і носили досить суперечливий характер. Зокрема, стало зрозуміло, що в основі подальших стосунків України та Росії в газовій сфері лежатиме ідея консорціуму з управління українською газотранспортною системою (ГТС), створення якого може призвести до перегляду ціни, яку платить «Нафтогаз» за російський газ. З одного боку, таке зрушення в українсько-російських стосунках можна привітати, адже принаймні на публічному рівні Росія поки відмовилася від риторики щодо вступу України в Митний союз як умови для зменшення ціни на газ. З іншого боку, можливе створення газотранспортного консорціуму також несе для України вельми серйозні загрози.

Рівноправна участь чи поглинання?

Попри попереднє спростування факту домовленості щодо створення консорціуму з управління українською ГТС з боку глави «Газпрому» Олексія Міллера, вірогідність реалізації такого сценарію  досить висока. Про це свідчать і слова Миколи Азарова, і неприховане бажання української сторони отримати нижчу ціну на блакитне паливо, яка, скоріше за все, стане реальністю після утворення такого консорціуму. Водночас, якщо ідея спільного підприємства з управління українською ГТС таки втілиться в життя, головне питання полягатиме в тому, хто і на яких умовах візьме в ньому участь.

Зокрема, існують великі сумніви стосовно реалістичності озвучених планів Києва щодо тристороннього характеру консорціуму. В суперечність із ними, зокрема, вступає заява самого Миколи Азарова щодо намірів знизити тариф за транзит газу територією України до рівня собівартості. Зрозуміло, що за таких умов українська ГТС працюватиме без будь-якого прибутку, тому важко уявити, що яка-небудь серйозна європейська компанія погодиться взяти участь в її управлінні. Відповідно, єдиним зиском від частки в такому консорціумі буде контроль над українською газотранспортною інфраструктурою, який навряд чи потрібен комерційним європейським структурам, однак цілком вдовольнить російський «Газпром». У такому разі не йтиме мова і про модернізацію української ГТС, адже без прибутку від транспортування газу на це просто не буде коштів.

Більше того, навіть у разі створення консорціуму за участю європейської компанії з поділом на три рівні частини паритет в управлінні українською ГТС може бути суттєво порушено. Експерти вказують на існування небезпеки того, що учасником спільного підприємства може стати європейська компанія, яка є або афілійованою структурою «Газпрому», або його партнером. У такому разі фактичне управління українською ГТС перейде до рук російської енергетичної компанії, яка контролюватиме її на дві третини. У результаті Україна може втратити право розпоряджатися своєю ГТС, що матиме наслідками суттєве зменшення доходів до бюджету і часткову втрату свого економічного суверенітету. Зрозуміло, що такий сценарій розвитку подій цілком узгоджується з планами Росії та «Газпрому» (а також певного кола людей серед українського керівництва), однак не може бути прийнятним для України.


Таким чином, після зустрічі Віктора Януковича з Дмитром Медведєвим і Володимиром Путіним в українсько-російських «газових» стосунках позначилося серйозне зрушення. Найбільш вірогідно, що незабаром сторони домовляться про створення консорціуму з управління українською газотранспортною системою в обмін на зниження ціни на російський газ для України. Водночас ризики такого сценарію очевидні, адже спільне управління українськими трубопроводами може перетворитися на їх передачу у власність російського «Газпрому». З іншого боку, вигоди від зниження ціни на газ можуть бути суттєво знівельовані низкою інших чинників, серед яких – необхідність підвищувати тарифи на газ для населення задля отримання кредиту МВФ і непрозорий характер ціноутворення в українському енергетичному секторі.

Yanukovych Becomes Yushchenko? TOP


September 30,2011

Alexander Motyl Alexander J. Motyl

Who wouldda thunk it?

Viktor Yanukovych’s transformation into Viktor Yushchenko is well under way.

Since the Orange Revolution of 2004, the two men have been viewed as, and indeed have been, antipodes with mutually exclusive visions of Ukraine. Yushchenko was pro-Ukrainian, pro-Western, and pro-democratic, while Yanukovych was anti-Ukrainian, pro-Russian, and anti-democratic. Although this “binary opposition,” like all binary oppositions, overstated the differences between the two, it was not inaccurate. Yushchenko was the good guy; Yanukovych was the bad guy. And the world made sense.

Until recently, when Yanukovych started making trouble.

It took Yanukovych about a year to demonstrate the same level of policy incompetence that Yushchenko needed a few years to perfect. Yanukovych has also caught up with and surpassed Yushchenko’s indifference to economic reform, rule of law, and corruption. And Yanukovych is rapidly matching Yushchenko’s legendary ability to drone on and on in public speeches and lose popular support.

That was the easy part.

There are four other, significantly more difficult things Yanukovych still has to do to complete the transformation: reorient Ukraine’s foreign policy toward the West, talk like a nationalist, abandon his anti-Ukrainian cultural policy, and try to be a democrat.

Amazingly, he’s been making progress on the first two points. After a year of kowtowing to Russia, Yanukovych has discovered that Ukraine has its own national interests, that they need to be promoted and defended, and that their promotion and defense requires moving Ukraine toward the West in general and the EU in particular. Too bad he didn’t see this elementary point a year and a half ago, but better late than never, I guess.

And then there’s Yanukovych’s rhetoric. Here’s part of the official English-language version of his address marking Ukraine’s twentieth anniversary of independence on August 24th:

Today, we celebrate the anniversary of our young country. Behind us are 20 years of modern history that changed our lives. And before them—another century of glory and liberation struggle of our previous generations. True foundation of these twenty years is the ancient experience of the Kyivan Rus. In those glorious times our land has been one of the spiritual centers of European Christian civilization. Ukraine is proud to continue this mission today. Our history is inextricably tied to modern Europe. Through the centuries the worthiest daughters and sons of Ukraine have dreamed of an independent country, the one based on freedom, humanism and democracy. And their dream has come true. We have gained independence and witnessed a wonderful event—the appearance of Ukraine on the world map…. We are building the state. The one our previous generations have dreamed of…. We have much to be proud of. We love our country. The Ukrainian nation has repeatedly demonstrated its wisdom and tolerance over the years. So let’s take care of each other, for Ukraine is us all! I wish us all long years of peace and prosperity! Happy Independence Day!

The language and sentiments are straight out of Yushchenko’s book (or Giuseppe Mazzini’s, for that matter). Even more amazing, they could just as easily have been voiced by the demonized leaders of the anti-Soviet nationalist movement (Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych) who were declared Heroes of Ukraine by Yushchenko and deprived of that status recently by a Yanukovych court.

The third step—abandoning anti-Ukrainian cultural policy—logically flows from the first and second steps. All Yanukovych has to do is dump the Russian supremacist Education Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk and replace him with just about anybody. Even a toothless wino from Brighton Beach would have more credibility—and couldn’t do a worse job.

The fourth step—abandoning authoritarianism—will be the hardest. After all, who wouldn’t want to be sultan of Ukraine? Even more difficult than letting go of the helicopters, ostrich-leather shoes, happy hunting grounds, and snazzy designer suits, however, is dumping the Party of Regions. After all, Yanukovych wouldn’t be president without the Regionnaires; then again, neither would he be—and neither will he remain—the discredited president of an incompetent authoritarian regime.

Could Yanukovych pull the plug on them? It’d be a miracle, but he might just have to—not in order to become a democrat, but in order to ward off a second Orange Revolution and save his own skin. Imagine that popular anger at the regime continues to snowball. Imagine that social mobilization continues to grow. Why not throw the Regionnaires to the wolves, proclaim oneself the nation’s pater familias, and try to forge a grand coalition with the democrats?

OK, OK, I know—it’ll never happen. But then again, who wouldda thunk that Viktor would become Viktor?

Hidden trap


Oct. 6, 2011

Government's effort to reduce the penalty for some white collar crimes in the criminal code may cause more problems that it potentially solves.

Although the government’s effort to modernize criminal justice legislation deserves praise, there is plenty of caution that needs to be taken when making radical changes.

The ongoing efforts to decriminalize illegal economic activity may cause more problems than it potentially solves.

Lawyers and prosecutors fear that the law takes away some of the few restrictions that corrupt officials have had so far. Once these deterrents are removed, the fear is that they will cheat and steal fearlessly, knowing that jail is not a threat for abuse of office and other corrupt practices.

And as far as fines go, they’re nothing to fear if you have been in office long enough and stacked up the cash high enough.

But fines are a different story for businesses. The new draft law introduces some draconian measures against businesses at fault. For some of the economic crimes like fraud, false bankruptcy claims and tax evasion, fines run up to Hr 850,000. In some cases the fines are not capped at all.

The deadlines for paying them are also extremely tight: instead of the current three-year term, the fine has to be paid in just six months. If you fail to pay, you still go to jail.

It’s good that business owners, CEOs and accountants at least get a choice between jail and paying large fines, while pre-trial detention is abolished altogether. It is also a good to reduce the powers of corrupt buureacrats and police to terrorize the citizenzry.

Yet accountants and other experts say there are plenty of loopholes that would allow abuse of this law by immoral businesspeople, too.

To sum it up, despite the hullabaloo around the law on “humanization of economic crimes,” too many people who should be ecstatic remain unhappy. The reason is that these laws seem badly thought out.

The government has set ambitious goals: trying to pass 21 categories of reforms in the same year. Yet the quality of decisions does not seem to be high on the agenda – and never has been, since the start of President Viktor Yanukovych’s term in office on Feb. 25, 2010.

Instead of mass-producing bad laws, it’s better to take time and do more homework, as well as involve business and expert communities to find the best solutions and compromises that will better calibrate punishment to the severity of the offense.

The nation veers between draconian punishments for unproven crimes, or allowing wholesale impunity for those suspected of serious financial crimes and worse.

"Суд"- Дмитро Павличко Літературна Україна TOP


imageДо зали суду, наче зв'язкова З моєї сотні, піймана у Лючі, Заходить Юля. А в судді брова Підскакує, мов щиглик на колюччі, І западає тиша гробова. Втім Юля встала: "Слава Україні!" І в залі встала воїнів чота: "Героям слава!"... Прокурорів тіні Розсипались, і блискавка крута Просяяла в небесній височіні, І стало ясно: це не суд, а мста!

Це мста за те, що та жона готова Ми президентські вибори піти І вдруге виграти! О будь здорова, Відважна жінко з серцем сироти, І хай хахлів дратує твоя мова - Державна й неподолана, як ти! [B]Крик на Хрещатику. В законі вори. Кричить держави нашої страма. Кричать офшори, банківські контори, Кричить хахол пащеками трьома,

Замкнені очі, ні, очей нема, Є тільки горла отвори в потвори. Той крик гуде в каштановім гіллі, Будинки глухнуть, глухнуть тротуари. Хахли й донецькі рідні москалі Ревуть: "На нари – Юлію, на нари!" Дрижання чути у віконнім склі І чути, як тремтять над світом хмари, А під землею – мертвяки гнилі. Крик на Хрещатику. Колона п'ята Перекричати хоче цілий світ, Що руку Юлі подає. Проклята Америка, Європа і реб'ята Кремлівські невдоволені. Привіт! Відома курва рік цілий кричала: "Замкніть же паню в білому! Замкніть!" А нині в Шустера крізь плач сказала: "Я б задушила того генерала, Що Юлю наказав заперти в кліть".

А Президент свої невинні руки, Чистесенькі, вмиває, мов Пилат. А пан суддя – Закон з бичем принуки! - Безликий, мов без стрілок циферблат, Вже пише вирок: "Здерти білий плат З підсудної, хай гине від розпуки, Хай вирвуть з неї серце чорні круки Печалі, – хай не вийде із-за ґрат". [B]А противсіхи, інтелектуали, Що нареклися нації мечем, І всі свої страждання оспівали, І жінку в білому скаменували, І віддали ЇЇ на суд нікчем. 0 генії, позначені злобою Чужого самолюбного ума, Не бились ви з холерою й чумою, Бо ви самі – холера і чума.

І я виходжу, наче з пекла, з суду, Де вигоріла кров моя дотла, Й не йду додому, там стояти буду, Біля тюрми, мов птаха без крила; Чекатиму на явище спасенне, Стоятиму на смертнім хіднику, Допоки Юля не пройде повз мене На волю у терновому вінку. Київ, 30.ІХ.2011

Links to event postings TOP

Do you maintain a website of events for your city or region? Let us know and we'll add a link to your site in the ePOSHTA newsmagazine.


 United States

Canadian flag Toronto: Third Toronto demonstration in support of Democracy for Ukraine and Release of all Political Prisoners -- Oct. 11


Third Toronto demonstration

in support of

Democracy for Ukraine
Release of all Political Prisoners

The verdict in Yulia Tymoshenko’s case is
anticipated on Tuesday Oct. 11.

Tuesday Oct. 11, 2011 at 6:30pm
In front of the Ukrainian Consulate
2275 Lakeshore Blvd West, Toronto
(two blocks west of Park Lawn on the south side)

Call, email and text message your friends


Sign up on Facebook cg4du@groups.facebook.com

For information contact:
Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine

Politically Repressed &
Jailed Political Prisoners in Ukraine

Svoboda: 40 politically repressed & jailed
Tryzub: 20 politically repressed
Tax code protestors: 30 politically repressed
Tymoshenko government: 15 jailed
Students, environmentalists: 20

Total:  OVER 125


Canadian Group for Democracy in Ukraine

New York: Vitali Klychko – Discussion & reception – Oct. 13


USA flag New York: Movie Night at the Institute -- October 15, 2011



Canadian flag Toronto: The Ukrainian Association of Visual Artists of Canada FALL EXHIBITION – Oct. 16-30 TOP
USA flag Whippany, N.J. Jacques Hnizdovsky Art Exhibition and Sale -- Oct. 16 TOP

An exhibition and sale of

original woodcuts, linocuts, and etchings


Jacques Hnizdovsky

Sunday, October 16, 2011, 1:00 – 4:00pm
Main Hall of the Ukrainian American Cultural Center of New Jersey
60-C North Jefferson Road
Whippany, N.J.

(973)  585-7175

Admission $20.00, includes champagne welcome and hors d’oeuvres.

Continuous screening of the award-winning film on the artist by Slavko Nowytski “Sheep in Wood” during the exhibition.

Jacques Hnizdovsky (1915-1985) was a highly-respected and prominent artist, expert in many techniques, especially the woodcut.  Most of his works are out-of-print or only few remaining, making this a timely opportunity to acquire his treasured art.

The event is sponsored by the Ukrainian National Women’s League of America, Branch #75, Morris County, New Jersey, with proceeds to benefit the branch.

Preview Hnizdovsky’s artwork : 


Canadian flag Торонто: Український фраматичний театр "Заграва" проводитъ набір акторів і працівників TOP
Mexico flag Cancun, Mexico : The Ukrainian American Bar Association -- Nov. 3-6 TOP


Conference: $55.00*
Students: Fee Waived

All-Inclusive $100. per night (D/O) 0% VAT

For details, airport transport and private UABA tours, see www.UABA.org
The discounted room prices can be extended to period from Oct. 31 to Nov. 10.
Book early for best rooms, and before our reserved block is committed

* before Oct. 6; $65 after that

Beautiful Location / Great Program

Travel and Reservations:
Lesia Kozicky ( )
Dunwoodie Travel Bureau, Ltd
(914) 969-4200

George Pazuniak, President
(302) 478-4230

More on our website http://www.uaba.org

Mexico flag Канкун, Мексико: Конференція Українсько-Американської Асоціяції Уристів -- 3-6 листопада TOP


Conference: $55.00*
Students: Fee Waived

All-Inclusive $100. per night (D/O) 0% VAT

For details, airport transport and private UABA tours, see www.UABA.org
The discounted room prices can be extended to period from Oct. 31 to Nov. 10.
Book early for best rooms, and before our reserved block is committed

* before Oct. 6; $65 after that

Beautiful Location / Great Program

Travel and Reservations:
Lesia Kozicky ( )
Dunwoodie Travel Bureau, Ltd
(914) 969-4200

George Pazuniak, President
(302) 478-4230

More on our website http://www.uaba.org

EU offers carrots for Ukraine to free Tymoshenko TOP

October 5, 2011

Pavel Korduban


Before and during the summit, the EU not only continued to criticize Kyiv for Tymoshenko’s treatment, but also offered carrots for her release. The head of the EU representative office in Ukraine, Jose Manuel Pinto Teixeira, indicated that the EU might think about inserting a provision in the political association agreement draft on a possible future membership for Ukraine if the political situation in the country improved (Interfax-Ukraine, September 19). Several EU officials including Fule reportedly said at the summit that the EU visa regime could be lifted for Ukrainian citizens sooner than planned. The EU also hinted that financial assistance to Ukraine could be increased if Ukraine took convincing steps toward democratization (Kommersant-Ukraine, September 30). Despite the controversy over Tymoshenko, the EU’s trade chief, Karel De Gucht, said after the summit that a free trade agreement would be concluded with Ukraine by the EU–Ukraine summit in early December at the latest, as planned (www.europa.eu, press release from October 3).

Circumstances are in Ukraine’s favour since the EU wants a success story in order to show that the Eastern Partnership, launched in 2009 to assist the six former Soviet states located in Europe in their political and economic transition without promising EU membership, has not been a waste of time and money. Ukraine is best suited for the role in contrast to the other participants in the Partnership, which are either even less democratic like Belarus – which demonstratively ignored the summit – or too weak both politically and economically like Moldova.

Yanukovych could save face and improve relations with the West if the offences Tymoshenko is charged with were decriminalized.

Complete article [ here ]

EU launches anti-trust investigation against Gazprom and its affiliates TOP

October 5, 2011

Vladimir Socor

The European Commission (executive arm of the EU) has launched a systematic anti-trust investigation of Russian Gazprom’s operations in European Union countries. From September 27 onward, the Commission has conducted surprise inspections at many of Gazprom’s subsidiaries and its joint-venture partners. The firms in question are engaged in the sale, transportation and storage of Russian natural gas in EU territory. Commission representatives have been checking, copying, or seizing records of business activities that are suspected of breaching EU competition law in collusion with Gazprom.

According to the communiqué from Brussels, the Commission suspects Gazprom and the inspected firms of using “exclusionary” and “exploitative” monopoly practices, such as: preventing diversification of gas supplies to markets, blocking competitors’ access to gas transportation networks, partitioning of markets and abuse of market dominance through excessive pricing. Thus, “the companies in question may have engaged in anti-competitive practices in breach of the EU’s anti-trust rules, or [these companies] are in possession of information relating to such practices” (EU Commission press releases, September 28, 29, October 3).

Approximately 20 firms (including Gazprom’s own subsidiaries and its independent partners) in at least 10 EU countries have been searched thus far. Gazprom Germania in Berlin, E.On Ruhrgas in Essen, RWE in Essen and Prague, OMV as well as Econgas and Centrex in Vienna, Vemex in Prague, SPP in Bratislava, Lietuvos Dujos in Vilnius, Eesti Gaas in Tallinn, Overgas and Bulgargaz in Sofia, are among the known inspection targets. Almost all inspection targets have announced that they are cooperating with the investigations (Der Spiegel, October 3; Wirtschaftsblatt, BNS, Novinite, September 29-October 3; Kommersant, Vedomosti, September 29, 30, October 3, 4).

Additionally, the European Commission is checking the contracts of some German companies, Gaz de France and Italian ENI with Gazprom. Apparently, the Commission is interested in details of those long-term contracts, which remain secret. The crucial details include pricing formulas, modalities of gas-to-oil price indexation, take-or-pay obligations and denial of competitors’ access to pipelines and markets. Such secret contracts are widely seen as amounting to collusion between Gazprom (or its subsidiaries) and some of its European partners, at European consumers’ expense. These practices have enabled Gazprom to undermine the EU’s market economy, energy security and, in some cases, the integrity of political systems, operating from outside the European Union through partners within the EU.

In anti-trust cases, the Commission has the power to search offices, subpoena and seize documents on suspicion of violations, without a court warrant. EU competition rules that ban the abuse of dominant positions and restrictive agreements apply to companies, not to States or governments. For many years, the EU had not challenged Gazprom’s business in Europe from the perspective of anti-trust law. Gazprom’s business allies, their political lobbies in Europe, and governments responsive to them (with Germany and Italy in the lead) had long shielded Gazprom from anti-monopoly action in the EU. The Commission’s move in this respect marks a real start to the EU’s common energy policy and external energy relations, in this case at the level of anti-monopoly law enforcement.

This comes as an accompaniment to the EU’s Third Energy Package, which took legal effect in March, requiring inter alia the separation (“unbundling”) of gas production and sales from transportation and storage. This is designed to prevent monopolization of markets by vertically-integrated companies, such as Gazprom operating with European allies. In its practical application, unbundling would require Gazprom to divest itself of its ownership (or ownership stakes) of transmission pipelines, distribution networks, and storage sites in EU member countries.

Lithuania rides in the forefront of efforts to enforce unbundling at the national level. Other countries are following suit. Some EU countries, however, have not yet started enforcing the Third Energy Package on their territories, or have even failed to announce intentions to do so. Inertia in this regard seems proportionate to the influence of Gazprom and its allies on political authorities in those countries. The Commission’s inspections are partly linked to such foot-dragging.  The EU’s Energy Commissioner, Guenther Oettinger, has cautioned the foot-draggers that they face enforcement actions by the EU (Commission press release, September 29).

The response from Moscow has been relatively subdued thus far. Russia’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, Energy Ministry, and Gazprom itself have all issued parallel statements, calling on the EU to respect the “legitimate rights and interests of Russian companies” [Gazprom’s subsidiaries in EU territory]. In this view, apparently, Moscow’s “legitimate” interests need not conform to EU law (Interfax, September 29, 30).

On October 3, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin issued a cautious statement, hoping that no one would be arrested during the investigation of Gazprom’s subsidiaries in Europe. In a set-piece conversation, staged in front of television cameras, Putin and Gazprom CEO Aleksei Miller said that Gazprom ought to cooperate with the investigations in EU countries, add to pipeline capacities for gas deliveries to Europe, and at the same time consider opening new export directions to Asian markets (Russian TV Channel One, Interfax, October 3).

The first element in their response indicates real concern over the Commission’s actions; the second sounds adversarial, alluding as it does to persisting with the South Stream project; and the third element is an unconvincing attempt to warn that Russia might re-orient its gas exports eastward, although the necessary infrastructure is lacking, and the distance from western Siberia to the Far East would raise the sale price of gas to prohibitive levels.

Vladimir Putin is trying to take Russia back in time + Тільки факти TOP

05 Oct 2011


Alex Spillius

If Vladimir Putin plays his cards right, by the time he has finished ruling Russia, he will have spent more time in power than Leonid Brezhnev, the great bear of the Soviet era. Poised to return as president next March, after a four-year stint as prime minister, Putin would be 71 in 2024 at the conclusion of two six-year terms in the Kremlin. Whether he lasts that long we shall see, but thanks to a recent encounter with a plastic surgeon’s scalpel, we can at least be sure that he will never look as old as his predecessor in the Kremlin. And as he has laid bare his intentions to retake the centre stage, Putin has been rolling back the years in other ways.

This week he has unveiled a grand vision to create a “Eurasian Union” linking old Soviet neighbours, foreseeing a “powerful, supranational union, capable of becoming one of the poles of the modern world”. Coming from a former KGB colonel who described the break-up of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century”, his words could easily prompt fears that he wanted to resurrect the USSR. He stressed that wasn’t the case. “It would be naive to try to restore or copy what was in the past. But time dictates that we should have closer integration based on values, politics and economics,” he wrote. The Eurasian Union could provide an “economically sound and balanced partnership” with the European Union.

So what does Putin want? His idea of a fully functioning revisionist fraternity seems a non-starter. Its success is likely to be as cosmetic as his recent operation. A customs union agreed with Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2009 is still very much a work in progress. Kazakh officials privately admit that they are not doing well out of the deal. It is hard to see who, from the 15 republics that were in the USSR, would welcome Moscow’s entreaties.

The three Baltic states – Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania – are happily independent and tired of Russia’s sneering and cyber-bullying. Ukraine, which would be crucial to any new alignment, wants to join Europe and has not appreciated Russia’s threats to its gas supply. The other “Stans” – Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan – have shown a desire to balance their foreign policy interests between Moscow, China and Washington.

“It is utterly pie in the sky,” says James Nixey, Russia analyst at the Chatham House think tank. “This is Putin living in the past, trying to recreate the supposed glories of his first stint as president. The fact is Russia has no mates, and if you don’t have any real friends this won’t work. The EU may have its problems with the eurozone, but it is still more attractive than something that harks to the past.”

Тільки факти


За роки перебування Володимира Путіна у влади Росія сильно змінилася

2000 рік

2010 рік

Населення, млн осіб



Житлова площа, кв. м на 1 людину



Середньомісячний дохід, $ на 1 людину



Частка громадян з доходом нижче прожиткового мінімуму, %



Кількість мільярдерів



У скільки разів 10% найбільш заможних громадян багатша за 10% найбільш бідних



Частка громадян, задоволених власним життям, %



ВВП, $ млрд



Кількість убивств і замахів на вбивства



Кількість поданих з країни скарг до Європейського суду з прав людини



* Ринкова вартість всіх вироблених в країні за рік товарів і послугДані Росстату, Forbes, Левада-центру, Інституту комплексних стратегічних досліджень, компанії "Фінансові і бухгалтерські консультанти", РосБізнесКонсалтингу, Європейського суду з прав людини, Фінансу, інтернет-видання slon.ru

Some final intrigue in the Tymoshenko trial




Vladimir Fesenko, head of the Penta Center for Applied Political Research in Kyiv

The trial of Yulia Tymoshenko, former prime minister of Ukraine and opposition leader, is entering its final stage. The gap in the hearings for preparing the judicial opinion will last until October 11. What will the verdict be? Will she stay in prison or be released? What will be the price for her and for Ukraine? No analyst can give a precise answer to these questions.

Showing weakness

The intrigue surrounding the trial is becoming even more complicated because of the ultimatum made by EU and U.S. leaders to the Ukrainian government and personally to President Viktor Yanukovych: Tymoshenko must be released and be allowed to participate in the elections (under Ukrainian law people with a criminal record lose the right to run for office).

This ultimatum was made in early September. Tymoshenko's trial was resumed on September 27 after a two week break. Many expected her to be released but nothing has changed - the trial was a stage of bitter conflicts and Tymoshenko was kept behind bars.

Did the ultimatum have no effect on Viktor Yanukovych? At the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw on September 29-30, EU leaders repeated the demand that Tymoshenko be released both on and off the record. For the time being, the current break in court hearings and the tedious wait for the verdict are the only indirect consequence of this demand. This trial was not launched only to be crowned with a verdict of non-guilty, even under Western pressure.

The trial was initiated not only for publicly punishing the current leadership's main political rival and barring her from politics but also for proving legally what huge losses the national treasury sustained because of her allegedly unjustified decisions.

The second goal of the trial is to undermine the legitimacy of the 2009 agreement on Russian gas supplies to Ukraine.

Such a judicial challenge requires at least some results. Moreover, Tymoshenko's acquittal would be a complete political and legal defeat not only for the initiators of this case but also for the Ukrainian government. The current Ukrainian leaders are reluctant to show weakness.

Political overtones

Even in the early stages of the trial, many experts believed that a suspended sentence would be the best option for the government. In that case, Tymoshenko would remain free but her guilt would be confirmed legally and she would be barred from running in parliamentary and presidential elections as a result of her conviction. The Ukrainian leadership knew at that time that Tymoshenko's arrest or prison sentence would jeopardize relations with the West, and this is why she remained free for a long time, unlike some of her government colleagues.

However, some Ukrainian leaders and Yanukovych's closest entourage insisted that Tymoshenko must be sent to prison and for a long time. Their view prevailed in early August when the trial was already on. The proceedings at the trial also probably irritated some people.

Tymoshenko the defendant went on the offensive, hurling accusations and discrediting the court and the Ukrainian government in every possible way. She was placed under arrest for her conduct, and the prosecution requested seven years in prison and compensation of losses totaling over 1.5 billion grivnas (almost $200 million).

Moreover, the article of the Criminal Code under which Tymoshenko has been accused (abuse of power and official authority, resulting in grave consequences) does not provide for a suspended sentence or amnesty.

Possible scenarios

There are several possible mild outcomes of the trial, which would allow the Ukrainian government to respect EU wishes and save face.

The first scenario involves a milder verdict and a suspended sentence. The article under which she is accused could be linked to Article 69 and Article 75 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code. Judicial statistics show that in 2008-2009 the absolute majority of the accused under the same article received a suspended sentence and only four (out of 119) were sentenced to terms from two to 10 years, while 18 people got off with fines. Things became tougher in 2010, but still half of all defendants under this article (27 out of 52) received suspended sentences, 19 from five to 10 years, three from two to five years, and another three were fined. However, a suspended sentence would not allow Tymoshenko to run for office. So, one of the EU demands would not be met.

The second scenario involves remanding the case. The trial revealed inconsistencies and other grounds for additional investigation. A decision to this effect makes it possible to continue manipulating the situation, keeping Tymoshenko on the hook for an indefinite time and leaving open the opportunity to close the deal if need be.

However, remanding the case would reflect badly on the performance of the Prosecutor's Office during the investigation. Meanwhile, this office is one of the key drivers of the Tymoshenko trial. Moreover, the defense has already called for the case to be remanded. So, the court and the political curators of the case are unlikely to offer such a present to the ex prime minister.

The third option involves decriminalizing the Criminal Code's article on abuse of power. It is a legal anachronism and can be used with a large degree of bias against the majority of current and former leaders. Here's one example. Former governor of the Kharkov Region Yevgeny Kushnaryov, one of the most active members of Yanukovych's team during the 2004 elections, was arrested in 2005 for abuse of power, notably misusing budget funds for the construction of a metro.

The opposition has already drafted several bills to decriminalize the articles on abuse of power by government officials. The Ukrainian president has also submitted a bill that would end criminal liability for economic crimes. Although Part 3 of Article 365 ("Tymoshenko's article") is not on the president's list, it is rumored in the presidential entourage that parliamentarians may include it.

Yanukovych reportedly hinted at this option during his meetings with his European colleagues in Warsaw. But there is one catch to this scenario - decriminalizing said article would not free one from responsibility for the committed crime. A defendant may only avoid prison time by reimbursing the losses.

In Tymoshenko's case, the losses are estimated at about $200 million. However, judging by official income declarations, Tymoshenko only received a salary (as a prime minister and people's deputy) in the last few years and had no savings, expensive property or big bank accounts. Who will pay for the losses then?

If payment for the losses is a mandatory condition for her release, decriminalization is pointless. Indicatively, Tymoshenko herself (if we are to believe Ivan Kirilenko, the leader of her parliamentary party) is against it. She objects to any legal admission of her guilt.

For the time being, many experts consider decriminalization the most likely mild outcome of the trial. The ten-day pause in the hearings is evidence of this. If we see legal actions confirming this scenario during the Verkhovnaya Rada's next plenary week, Tymoshenko's fate will become clearer but not completely.

Confusion over the reimbursement of losses may lead to another trial. Tymoshenko herself will dispute any verdict except not guilty. But decriminalization (in the event of Tymoshenko's release) will allow Kiev to save face and avoid trouble with the EU over the Association Agreement.

However, there in no guarantee that Tymoshenko will be released. The pause in the trial was taken for contemplation but the scales may tilt toward a verdict of guilty. Yanukovych hates being pressured into anything.

Excessive European pressure may lead him to make a decision contrary to Western expectations. There may be people in his entourage who will try to persuade him that the EU will not refuse to sign a new agreement and that the main thing is to keep Tymoshenko behind bars.

Ukrainians remain silent

What if Tymoshenko remains in prison after the verdict is pronounced? Relations between Ukraine and the EU are bound to cool off. There will be problems either with the singing of the Association Agreement and a free trade area between Ukraine and the EU or during the ratification process.

From there everything will depend on Ukraine's response to this cool-off. It may feel hurt by the West and Europe and turn towards Russia. However, another instance of strategic hovering between the West and Russia is no less likely.

There is little chance of domestic upheaval if Tymoshenko receives a long prison term. Ukrainians did not protest her arrest. According to sociologists, they are more likely to be angry over socio-economic problems rather that political conflicts between the government and the opposition.

Needless to say, opposition-minded Ukrainians will increasingly protest the current government, but the political temperature in Ukrainian society is determined by the silent and mistrustful majority that does not support the government or the opposition.

Ukrainian parliament surrounded by mystery fences TOP

October 05, 2011

A new fence has appeared near the parliament in Kyiv

imageKYIV -- The Ukrainian parliament building in Kyiv is now completely surrounded by a high fence, RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service reports.

One section of the fence was built this summer from Constitution Square to Mariinsky Park, where the unicameral Verkhovna Rada is located.

This week another section more than 2 meters high with pointed apexes was extended from the side of Mariinsky Palace. Those sections join up with a smaller fence that runs along Hrushevsky Street.

The parliament building is guarded by police around the clock.

Parliament speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn said on October 4 he did not know who is building fences around the parliament and how the construction is financed, but promised to find out who is responsible.

Party of Regions faction leader Oleksandr Yefremov also denied any involvement on the part of parliament deputies.

"If the leadership of law enforcement bodies consider this necessary for some reason, or economic structures are doing this, I can assure you, this is not a decision by the parliament deputies," Yefremov said.

He added that no fence can divide the government and the people.

Last month, thousands of Soviet veterans of the Afghan war and the Chornobyl nuclear disaster clean-up tried to storm the parliament building to protest planned social cuts.

They tore down part of the fence, which has been replaced with the higher one.

The Kyiv police told RFE/RL they were not involved in the construction of the fences. The Kyiv city administration declined to confirm or deny it ordered any of the fences to be built.

Oles Doniy, a parliament member representing the opposition Our Ukraine -- People's Self-Defense faction, told RFE/RL on October 3 it was not important which city agency was involved.

"The authorities fear the people more and more. The fence is a kind of symbol that democracy is now locked in Ukraine," Doniy said.

Opposition deputies also say they think the parliament leadership is aware of who ordered the fence construction.

Ukrainian oligarchs fund Jewish news channel TOP


Rina Soloveitchik

image Two Ukrainian oligarchs have established the world’s first Jewish 24-hour television news channel, which started broadcasting last week.

Officials for the channel, funded by Igor Kolomoisky and Vadym Rabinovich at a cost of $5 million, said it was aimed at presenting a Jewish perspective on world events.

Political analysts said the nonprofit channel, called JN1, looks like an effort by the oligarchs to boost their international reputations to strengthen their political cover, much like many other billionaire Ukrainians have in recent years to guard against political pressure.

JN1 has bureaus in Kyiv, Tel Aviv and Brussels, and hopes to open further offices in Washington, Paris, London, Berlin and Moscow next year. According to an editor, the channel employs more than 50 people at its Kyiv production center. The programming can be viewed on YouTube and is available in America, Europe and Israel via satellite and cable packages.

The channel is supposed to “look at world affairs through Jewish glasses,” the Brussels bureau chief, Alexander Zanzer, told British daily The Guardian.

A Jewish perspective however does not mean a “unified Jewish vision” the channel’s Kyiv-based chief editor, Peter Dickinson, told the Kyiv Post. “We rather see the channel as a platform on which the voices of different Jewish communities are raised and their viewpoints are presented,” he added.

As an example, Dickinson named the channel’s reporting of Palestine’s attempt to gain membership of the United Nations. “Whereas most channels focused on the Palestinian perspective on the issue, we reported the viewpoints of different Jewish groups within Israel. We did not demonstrate a unified standpoint but reported on Peace Now actions (an Israeli group of activists known for defending Palestinian interests), as well as on the opinions of settlers,” he said.

Kolomoisky is Ukraine’s second richest man, with a fortune of more than $6 billion, according to the Kyiv Post list of richest Ukrainians from December 2010. Rabinovich is a wealthy businessman who is vice president of the European Jewish Union. Kolomoisky is the president.

Dickinson said the oligarchs “saw an opportunity” on the television market. “The rational is diversification, there is no such Jewish platform so far. If they would not have done it now, other funding bodies would have done it,” he added.

Political analysts consider the channel a way for the oligarchs to protect themselves against any possible pressure in an increasingly tough environment, where loyalty to the authorities is widely seen as being needed to ensure protection from administrative and legal pressure.

“It’s well known that Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine use the Jewish lobby to protect themselves,” said political analyst Vadym Karasiov. “The TV channel can be seen as another instance of Kolomoisky and Rabinovich doing this. They are already using the European Jewish Council for this purpose.”

Ukraine launches two museums TOP

October 6, 2011

Two new Jewish museums are planned in Kyiv, Ukraine. Jewish leaders in Ukraine announced last week that they hoped to begin construction in September next year, in addition to the several Jewish museums that already exist in the country.

According to Oleksandr Feldman, a Ukrainian MP and businessman, the first museum is planned as the most comprehensive history of Jews in the Ukraine, while the second museum will be built near the Babi Yar ravine, where almost 34,000 were murdered in one of the biggest massacres perpetrated by the Nazis, 70 years ago.

Speaking at a conference in Kyiv, held to fight antisemitism and racism, Mr Feldman said he was ready to invest large sums of money in the project, and called on other private investors and governments to join him. Mr Feldman praised the co-operation of the local authorities. He said: "The mayor of Kyiv is very supportive of the idea and the local municipality has already offered us land for the two museums. Now we would like to find an architect and start the construction work next September."

Rabbi Moshe Azman, one of three claimants to the title of chief rabbi of Ukraine, revealed that two of the country's wealthiest businessmen, Vadim Rabinovich and Igor Kolomoisky, have already expressed interest in the project.

"It will be a museum that will focus on the Holocaust and will tell the story of the Jews who were murdered by the Nazis. It will be very similar to Yad Vashem," said Rabbi Azman.

"Межигір'я" Януковича. Нові вражаючі фото журналу "Корреспондент" TOP

06 жовтня 2011


На цій картинці - лише близько 7 гектарів "Межигір'я" зі 136 гектарів загальної площі..
На цій картинці - лише близько 7 гектарів "Межигір'я" зі 136 гектарів загальної площі..
На цій картинці - лише близько 7 гектарів "Межигір'я" зі 136 гектарів загальної площі..

Журнал "Корреспондент" публікує фотографії найбільш охоронюваного і міфічного об'єкту України - резиденції "Межигір'я".

Знімки зроблено з повітря. На фото видно величезний маєток, який називається "клубний дім", або "Хонка" - від назви фінської фірми елітарного будівництва. Саме тут, після завершення всіх робіт, має реально мешкати Янукович.

Головний об'єкт на цій території - так звана "Хонка", або "клубний будинок". Він не трьох-, а п'ятиповерховий - ще два поверхи видно, якщо проводити зйомку з Київського моря.

Поряд з "Хонкою" - каскад штучних озер з банно-оздоровчим комплексом. Світлі споруди - це спорткомплекс, критий тенісний корт, боулінг, підземний тир.

"Корреспондент" задається питанням: якщо формально Януковичу належить в "Межигір'ї" невеликий будинок, який він показав журналістам, то чиє тоді все решта? Тим більше, якщо всередині між всім цим немає жодних огорож, окрім декоративних.

Янукович у переддефолтній Греції хвалився стабільною Україною TOP
Герої країни.


В.ЯНУКОВИЧ назвав закономірним, що реформи і політична стабільність створюють привабливі умови для інвестицій в Україні.

Цього року приріст валового внутрішнього продукту (ВВП) в Україні очікується на рівні 5%

Як передає кореспондент УНІАН, про це заявив Президент України Віктор ЯНУКОВИЧ, виступаючи на бізнес-форумі «Співпраця України та Греції в умовах світової економічної кризи: практичні можливості та перспективи співпраці».

За його словами, стабільна робота влади дозволила країні відновити позитивні тенденції в економіці. Зокрема, зростання відбулося у всіх ключових секторах економіки: промислове виробництво зросло на 9%, будівництво – на 14%, аграрна галузь – більш як на 9%. В.ЯУКОВИЧ наголосив, що також пожвавився внутрішній споживчий ринок.

«Маємо стабільну і врівноважену фінансову ситуацію, стабільний та прогнозований курс гривні», - сказав він.

За словами В.ЯНУКОВИЧА, експорт товарів і послуг України за підсумками першого півріччя, порівняно з аналогічним періодом минулого року, зріс на 42%. Цього року Україна планує отримати врожай зернових на рівні понад 50 млн. тонн, що на 11 млн. тонн більше, ніж торік.

В.ЯНУКОВИЧ назвав закономірним, що реформи і політична стабільність створюють привабливі умови для інвестицій в Україні.

За його словами, одним із пріоритетних напрямів подальшої роботи щодо модернізації економіки України є покращення умов ведення бізнесу.

«Ми зосередилися на удосконаленні механізмів державної регуляторної політики через зменшення втручання держави у діяльність бізнесу, спрощення та удосконалення існуючих процедур регулювання», - сказав Президент.

Він підкреслив, що вже зараз на третину скорочено ліцензовані види діяльності, зменшено кількість контролюючих органів, визначено вичерпний перелік документів дозвільного характеру та запроваджено «декларативний принцип» їхньої видачі, суттєво спрощено відповідні процедури у будівництві.

За словами В.ЯНУКОВИЧА, нагальними завданнями є завершення реформування регуляторної системи, удосконалення законодавства з питань банкрутства та протидії протиправному поглинанню і захопленню підприємств, посилення відповідальності за порушення у сфері державної реєстрації. Також особливої уваги потребує реформування сфери надання адміністративних послуг.

Як повідомляв УНІАН, 20 вересня МВФ покращив прогноз росту ВВП України в 2011 році з 4,5% до 4,7%.

Європейський банк реконструкції та розвитку підвищив прогноз росту ВВП України в 2011 р. порівняно з травневим прогнозом на 0,5 п. п. - до 5%.

У державному бюджеті на 2011 рік передбачений ріст ВВП на рівні 4,5%.

Януковича освистали на стадіоні TOP

08 жовтня 2011

Президент Віктор Янукович взяв участь в урочистій церемонії відкриття реконструйованого НСК "Олімпійський" у Києві. 


Гімн вдруге запустили вгадайте навіщо.

В Одеській області вже добу гасять пожежу у заповіднику TOP


image Співробітники МНС продовжують ліквідацію загоряння на території Дунайського біосферного заповідника в Одеській області. Гасіння пожежі ускладнено через болотисту місцевість

Як повідомили в Міністерстві надзвичайних ситуацій, 6 жовтня о 8:50 в Кілійському районі Одеської області на території Дунайського біосферного заповідника, у буферній зоні на острові Бєлгородський, було виявлено спалах очерету та сухої рослинності на території близько 6 км вздовж Очаківського гирла і в глиб острова в болотистій місцевості.

Станом на ранок 7 жовтня ліквідація загоряння триває. При цьому, як зазначили в МНС, гасіння із залученням пожежної техніки неможливе через болотисту місцевість.

Загрози населенню міста Вилкове немає. Керівництво заповідника визначає площу пожежі. До гасіння і моніторингу ситуації залучено 26 осіб та 5 човнів, у тому числі 14 осіб від МНС.

На місці події працює оперативна група Головного управління МНС в Одеській області.

Нагадаємо, 5 жовтня пожежа сталася в Кримському природному заповіднику.

Корреспондент: Різниця в рівні життя між Києвом та провінцією перетворюється в прірву TOP


imageРізниця в рівні життя між Києвом і кількома великими містами з одного боку і всією іншою країною з іншого перетворюється в прірву. Як пише Корреспондент, звернути зі шляху держав третього світу Україні може допомогти лише тотальна децентралізація.

Оцінюючи різницю в якості життя населення Києва, міст-мільйонників і провінції, старший аналітик Міжнародного центру перспективних досліджень Максим Борода приходить до невтішних висновків.

"В Україні є і Європа, і Азія, і Африка.І все це в одній країні", - заявив Корреспонденту експерт. Під Європою він має на увазі Київ, під Азією - індустріальний Схід. Тему української Африки Борода делікатно обходить.

Але якщо подивитися на рівень ВВП на душу населення в різних регіонах, Африка виявляється сама собою. Так, у Києві цей показник у шість разів вищий, ніж у Тернопільській або Закарпатській областях.А середня зарплата відразу в десяти регіонах країни, переважно західних та центральних, не дотягує до $ 250, хоча в столиці вона майже дорівнює $ 500. І цей тотальний розрив між центром і околицями з року в рік лише посилюється.

Як пише Корреспондент, яскраво виражений зподіл на багатий центр і злиденну провінцію - це шлях країн, що розвиваються, таких як Китай або Росія. Ці держави виглядають як привабливі ринки, нарощують свій вплив, але плодами їх успіхів користується мінімальна частина населення.

А ось в успішних і комфортних державах ЄС, за словами директора аналітичного центру Асоціації міст України Володимира Пархоменка, регіональний розрив не так помітний. І тому офіційному Києву було б доречніше розвивати провінцію, ніж повторювати помилки Москви або Пекіна.

Середня зарплата в Україні, за даними Держкомстату за перше півріччя 2011-го, коливається на рівні 2490 грн. ($ 311).Але лише п'ять регіонів країни - столиця, Київська, Луганська, а також Донецька і Дніпропетровська області - можуть похвалитися тим, що в них середня зарплата вища цієї цифри.

Зате відразу в десяти областях - представниць західного і центрального регіону - цей показник не дотягує навіть до 2 тисяч гривень ($ 250). При цьому у Києва особливе місце - він незмінно перший в подібних рейтингах. Сьогодні тут в середньому отримують $ 475. Тетяна Рибчинська, керівник напрямку Інформаційні послуги з винагород консалтингової компанії Hay Group, каже, що столичні зарплати на 35% вищі, ніж в будь-якому з українських регіонів.

Це й не дивно: Київ не лише адміністративна, а й фінансова столиця. Тут розташовані майже всі головні офіси великих вітчизняних компаній і іноземних представництв. Річний бюджет одного лише Києва торік дорівнював 14,65 млрд грн - це сумарний бюджет шести областей(Львівської, Волинської, Тернопільської, Чернівецької, Донецької та Луганської).

Крім того, на головне місто України припадає половина всіх іноземних інвестицій, що надійшли в країну за всю її історію, -на 1 липня ця цифра дорівнювала $ 23,4 млн. За даними Держкомстату, найближча суперниця Києва - промислово розвинена Дніпропетровська область - отримала в три рази меншу частку (16%). А основна частина країни, 19 областей,задовольнялися 0,1-2,0% від загального потоку грошей закордонних інвесторів.

Докладніше про те, чому зарплати в Києві набагато вищі, ніж в регіонах, а також як подолати цей розрив, читайте в № 39видання Корреспондент від 2011 року.

Світовий банк створить в Україні фруктовий кооператив TOP


Світовий банк вирішив підтримати створення в Україні першого фермерського кооперативу з виробництва фруктів.

Організація групи СБ по роботі з приватним бізнесом, Міжнародна фінансова корпорація повідомила, що кооператив "Наші фрукти" об'єднає більшість профільних господарств Вінницької області, передають "Подробности".

Скільки грошей вирішено вкласти в новий проект, не вказується, проте повідомляється, що це продовження попередньої схожої ініціативи, що дозволила організувати курси перепідготовки приблизно для 2,5 тисячі фермерів регіону і залучити для розвитку галузі банківське фінансування на суму майже 5 мільйонів доларів.

Всього корпорація вклала в український агробізнес близько 500 мільйонів доларів.

1-2 жовтня у Києві відбувся IV Фестиваль "Гайдамака" TOP


Організатором і ініціатором Фестивалю вже IV рік поспіль є Братство козацького бойового Звичаю <<Спас>> та Вадим Васильчук.


У "Козак-квесті"на Трухановому острові, в рамках Фестивалю <<Гайдамака>>, взяли участь 15 команд по 5 чоловік у кожній. Боролися за головний приз - 7 кілограмів козацького золота. Про старт квесту козаків традиційно сповістила гармата. Молоді вояки долали перешкоди, хвацько їздили верхи та відповідали на історичні питання: за 3 години кожен гурт мав пройти 12 випробувань та продемонструвати знання рідної історії. На фініші організатори годували кулішем зголоднілих козаків та нагороджували призами Фестивалю.


У другий день Фестиваль <<Гайдамака>> отримав продовження на Контрактовій площі, де охочі мали нагоду повправлятися в козацьких забавах, майстер-класах з володіння зброєю та бойових мистецтвах, відвідати ярмарок народних майстрів, скуштувати куліш та гарячий глінтвейн, а також на літературній сцені послухати кобзарів, поетів та акустичні колективи.


Продемонструвати різноманітні ремесла до столиці з'їхалися умільці з різних куточків України. Майстри демонстрували прикраси із полімерної глини, коштовного каміння, срібла, міді; ляльки-мотанки; вироби з соломи, хмизу та дерева; вишиванки та теплі ковдри. Також пропонувалося відчути себе справжнім ковалем - самостійно виготовити фестивальну монету.



Завершальним акордом Фестивалю <<Гайдамака>> став святковий концерт за участі гуртів "ТаРута", "Рутенія", "Тінь Сонця"  та "Гайдамаки". Родзинкою концерту була церемонія нагородження переможців "Козак-квесту" перехідним кубком <<Переможці Козак-Квесту>>, який вручав почесний гість Фестивалю - ректор <<НаУКМА>> Квіт С.М. та 7 кілограмами козацького золота з рук отамана Братства козацького бойового Звичаю <<Спас>> Васильчука Вадима.

Фестиваль <<Гайдамака>> - масштабна культурно-розважальна подія цього року, у якій взяли участь близько 3000 осіб. Окрему вдячність організатори Фестивалю висловлюють  партнерам : квасу <<Ярило>>, <<НаУКМА>>, <<Наш Формат>>, <<Трипільське коло>> та медіа-партнерам: генеральному Інтренет-партнеру <<EX.UA>>, радіо-партнеру <<Ера FM>>, журналу <<Країна>>,  <<Майдан>>, <<УІС>>, <<ПРО>>, <<Радіо-КВІТ>> та іншим.

Archbishop Ihor Isichenko of Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church comments on visit of Patriarch Kirill



The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, with his own hands destroys the image of the alleged independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate from Moscow. According to a report from the newspaper Day (#177 of 4 October), this opinion was expressed by Archbishop Ihor (Isichenko) of Kharkiv and Poltava of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

"I have the impression that Patriarch Kirill with his own hands devalues his visits. When visits of a church primate to a neighboring state become ordinary, attention to them is reduced, and, therefore, their importance is reduced, of course," said Archbishop Ihor Isichenko.

According to the hierarch, "Bishop Volodymyr (Sabodan) is under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and, by stressing again and again his authority over the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, Patriarch Kirill is destroying more and more the image that was created by Metropolitan Volodymyr with such difficulties from the time of his election. For the strategy of the Churches of Moscow Patriarchate in Moscow was always based on stressing its actual independence from Moscow. In reality, Patriarch Kirill with his actions during several years showed the illusory character of this independence."

"Therefore, his addresses and presence without considering the existence of the local structures of the UOC-MP actually question the future of that church as a component of  Ukrainian social life. It is clear that with the existing conjuncture when the pro-Russian forces are politically stronger in Ukraine, that church continues to have a strong social influence. But this period will inevitably end and then the question of the relations of that church with its foreign center and the state on whose territory it acts will arise," said Archbishop Ihor (Isichenko).

Re: Tymoshenko prosecution is a dead end for Ukraine


October  09, 2011 14:58

Ms. Chalupa, I know you are focusing on the very obvious and very clear fact that the persecution of Tymoshenko, Lutsenko and 10 other former officials is solely poltiical in nature - it is abuse of the legal system in Ukraine, such as it is, to try to advance the political interests of village idiot Yanukonvikt and his sovok mafia Party of Regions.

But there is a far more fundamental problem in the persecution of Tymo and the 11 other officials.

1) Ukraine's constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial - but Ukraine has done nothing in 20 years to implement juries.

This is one of the most fundamental rights than a person has in a democracy. It is the basis for overturning convictions in democracies - that a person has been deprived of the right to a jury.

Does it not bother you that a huge fundamental right has been violated not only in Tymoshenko's cse, but also in the persecutions of the other 11 officials?

2) InTymoshenko's case, Article 365 under which Tymo is being persecuted, dates back to 1927 - and stalin!!!!!!!

Literally translated, the "crime" is:

"exceeding government, or powers of office, with heavy consequences"

In any democracy, a conviction under such a statute would be overturned because the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Under such a statute, no charges should have ever been brought.

And having been brought - the charges should have been dismissed.

Does this not bother you?

3) The "judge" is essentially an arm of Yanukonvikt, due to "reforms" enacted by Yanukonvikt and his sovok mafia.

There is no independent and impartial judiciary in Ukraine, except possibly for the Constitutional Court - and Yanukonvich and his sovok mafia are trying to change that as well.

There is no lawyer or judge in Ukraine that can possibly be proud of the kangaroo court system in Ukraine.

Does this not register at all?

The solution in simple - dismiss the charges, which should never have been brought, and which are not supported by any evidence.

Only in bizarro, ass backwards Ukraine would they look for twisted, perverted, tortured "solutions" solely for the sake of "saving face" for the village idiot president Yanukonvichs fat ass.

It is as disgusting as it is unbelievable.

Stupid sovok mafia homo sovieticus putzes "at work."


ADMINISTRATION, subscribing, unsubscribing, etc. TOP

Myroslava Oleksiuk
-- editor-in-chief

Oxana Bukanova
-- editor

Марта Онуфрів
-- кореспондент
Marta Onufriv
-- correspondent

Галуна Мокрушина
-- переклад
Halyna Mokrushyna
-- translation

Діана Мережко
-- кореспондент (Здоров'я)
Diana Merezhko
-- correspondent (Health)

Zenon Chytra
-- story layout

John Heron
-- webmaster www.eposhta.com

Ihor Prociuk
-- story layout and design

We hope you found ePOSHTA informative and will share it with others. Your submissions and suggestions are always welcome.


Use the following e-mail addresses to:

SEND us e-mail:

Subscribe to the ePOSHTA-CanadaUS NewsMagazine:
Is one of your friends forwarding ePOSHTA to you? Why not subscribe directly! Just enter your e-mail in the box below and click on Subscribe Now!.

Unsubscribe from the ePOSHTA-CanadaUS NewsMagazine:
Send an email to:
YahooGroups (which managers our subscriptions) will send you an e-mail -- to which you must reply -- in order to confirm that you want to unsubscribe.

Subscription Issues:
Having difficulty subscribing (or unsubscribing)? Or maybe you want us to add your friends to our newsmagazine? Contact:
Make sure you have "Subscription" in the subject line.

Events, Conferences, Employment:
Send announcements at least two weeks before the event date to: events@eposhta.com
See the guidelines for submitting EVENT announcements.

If you maintain a website of events for your city or region, let us know. We will add a link to your site in our ePOSHTA newsmagazine.

Myroslava Oleksiuk myroslava@rogers.com

Zenon Chytra
John Heron
Ihor Prociuk