July 14, 2010, Kyiv hosted an international conference of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), where was announced the need for large-scale propagation of CSTO among the Ukrainians for “brain washing”.
In the pro-Russian government that was established in Ukraine after the victory of Yanukovych in the presidential elections last winter, most politicians want the further cooperation with Russia, to reach an economic, political and military integration.
So, what about the economic integration it’s already too late for openly pro-Russian politicians as the President of Ukraine Mr. Yanukovych is, because Ukraine is part of the World Trade Organization ( WTO) since 2008. And as Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus are not parts of this international organization, Ukraine can not join the Russian project of customs union. It’s a good news for Ukraine. We must say thank you to Yushchenko that Ukraine joined the WTO and he has saved our economic independence.
Concerning the political integration, Ukraine is not a part of the European Union (EU) nor the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). As the EU shows no political will on the Ukrainian question about possible Ukraine joining the EU, gives every opportunity to Russia for maneuvering to put Ukraine in its sphere of interest (CIS and other projects). Rejecting Ukraine, the EU can have a volatile area near its eastern borders. Otherwise, the EU could show its true face to the people of the EU on double standards concerning a European country as Ukraine. Like this, it will reduce the image of the EU in the eyes of people around the world as an organization/country struggling for democracy and freedoms of people.
Regarding military integration, Ukraine is still a neutral country, but that may change. In 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania, under pressure from Russia, France and Germany, NATO has rejected the application of Ukraine to grant the Membership Action Plan (MAP). So, the population of Ukraine is frustrated, the people of Ukraine were expecting the backing of the expected the granting of MAP, but NATO member-countries refused it. After the complete failure feels forgotten by the West and does not believe in the values announced by the EU. What it gives to the EU and NATO? Above all, NATO risks to lose Ukraine as an active partner (Ukraine takes part in all operations of the NATO from “Active Endeavour” to Afghanistan). Because it is not in the interest of Ukraine to cooperate so deep with NATO without membership. So, the new pro-Russian president of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych pushes Ukraine into the hands of Russia. That is to say, he and his team will promote the CSTO and therefore, as the military bloc is opposed to NATO and the West, in my opinion it is a bad sign/message for European and American politicians. Otherwise, in the future Ukraine may join the CSTO and become a rival to NATO.
Instead of conclusion. The EU and the U.S. must put themselves a question “do they want Ukraine as a stable and predictable partner or they want to have a zone of instability and Ukraine who plays like Russia?”.

I express my condolences to his family and all Poles!

Cancellation of visa regime with EU for Ukrainians is a question of months, but Ukraine has to undertake all necessary reforms.
This was announced by former NATO General Secretary and the EU High representative for common visa policy Javier Solana told the newspaper “Kommersant-Ukraine”.
“For the abolition of visa you have to do much” – he answered the question, why Ukraine has not been able to agree on abolishing the visa regime with EU.
“Primarily it’s all about technical problems. You need to create a database (of passports), you may need to switch to biometric passports” – said Solana.
In remarks that President Viktor Yanukovych has promised Ukrainians that he’ll sign cancellation of visa regime during one year, he said:
“I’m not sure how much time it’ll take – 9, 12 or 20 months. But in any case the resolution of visa regime problems is a question of months.”
“The only condition – you must perform all necessary reforms. The terms depend on you” – said Solana.

The European Parliament,

– having regard to its previous resolutions on Ukraine,

– having regard to the Statement and Recommendations of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, which met in October 2009,

– having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the European Union and Ukraine, which entered into force on 1 March 1998, and to the ongoing negotiations on the Association Agreement (AA) designed to replace the PCA,

– having regard to the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda, replacing the Action Plan, set up in June 2009,

– having regard to the Joint Statement adopted at the EU-Ukraine summit which took place in Kyiv on 4 December 2009,

– having regard to the agreement between the European Community and Ukraine on visa facilitation, signed on 18 June 2007, which entered into force on 1 January 2008,

– having regard to the results of the Ukrainian presidential elections, in which the first round was held on 17 January and the second round on 7 February 2010,

– having regard to the Eastern Partnership (EaP) launched in Prague in May 2009,

– having regard to the statements made by the OSCE/ODHIR Observation Mission on the presidential elections of 17 January and 7 February 2010,

– having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas Ukraine has strong historical, cultural and economic links to the European Union and whereas it is one of the EU’s key strategic partners in its Eastern neighbourhood; whereas its integration with the EU can have a positive effect on the security, stability and prosperity of the whole continent,

B. whereas Ukraine is a European state and, pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, may apply for membership of the EU like any European state that adheres to the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law,

C. whereas the International Election Observation Mission noted that the second round of the presidential elections in Ukraine confirmed the assessment of the first round that most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments had been met and that this election had consolidated progress achieved since 2004,

D. whereas Ukraine’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) marks an important step in its acceptance of international and European economic standards and of enhanced trade links with the EU, speeding up the negotiations on the establishment of a Deep and Comprehensive Free-Trade Area (DCFTA) as an integral part of the AA,

E. whereas it should be remembered that Ukraine is country that has experienced communism and Soviet domination and has come a long way to overcome the negative legacies these have left behind,

F. whereas around 80% of Russian gas to the EU transits via Ukraine,

G. whereas the EaP can be successful and contribute to the peaceful development, stability and prosperity of all the Eastern neighbours only if it is based on concrete and credible projects and is sufficiently funded; whereas, given its size and geopolitical and strategic importance, Ukraine is considered a regional leader within the EaP,

1. Welcomes the statement by the International Election Observation Mission that the second round of the presidential election in Ukraine confirmed the assessment of the first round that most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments had been met, that the candidates had been able to campaign freely in a competitive, yet polarised election environment, that the media had generally provided voters with an opportunity to make an informed choice and that, on election day, voting had been conducted in an orderly, professional and transparent manner across the country in a calm atmosphere;

2. Welcomes the high voter turnout, which shows the active involvement of Ukrainian citizens in deciding the course of their country and is a commitment that Ukrainian politicians will have to live up to;

3. Believes that Ukraine, like any functioning democracy, not only needs to focus on election day itself, but also requires a wider legal framework guaranteeing the transparency of the political process, including the financing of political parties and candidates;

4. Acknowledges Ukraine’s European aspirations; believes that the door to Europe should be open and that the orderly elections are an important signal for European public opinion which makes it clear that today Ukraine is a normal European state that has the right to make its European choice;

5. Highlights Ukraine’s pivotal role in the European Union’s energy security; underlines the importance of stepping up cooperation between Ukraine and the EU in the field of energy and calls for further agreements between the EU and Ukraine aimed at securing energy supplies for both sides; underlines the importance of transparency in gas supply and transit systems; is concerned that the Nord Stream pipeline project undermines the principle of solidarity in the EU’s energy security, is directly targeted at transit countries and is to be constructed to circumvent Ukraine;

6. Underlines the fact that, although progress has been made, the existing visa facilitation agreement should be re-examined with long-term objectives in mind, and calls on the Council to mandate the Commission to revise this agreement with the Ukrainian authorities in order to work on a roadmap to visa-free travel for Ukraine;

7. Calls on the Commission and the Council to reaffirm the EU’s willingness to help Ukraine through the instruments proposed by the EaP and the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda; underlines the fact that the EaP should not hinder EU membership for neighbouring countries wishing to apply on the basis of Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States, and the Government and Parliament of Ukraine.

The author of this article thinks that the European Union has deceived Ukraine, and said that after outpouring of European hopes and enthusiasm of six years ago, the country is now even more distant to accession to the EU then before.

“Ukraine has a large debt, has become more corrupt and has remained so dysfunctional, as in 2004, when hundreds of thousands people went out into the streets of Kyiv to support the Orange Revolution”. – says the publication.

The same leaders, who have promoted democratic reforms and the accession of Ukraine to the EU instead of depending on Russia. It was the best moment for Europe, thinks the Newsweek, to influence Ukraine. But Brussels has responded with indifference.

“Infighting about new Constitution and the fear that the West would choke with ostarbeiters from Eastern Europe, the EU officials avoided calling Ukraine “European country” and refused to launch the formal accession process”.

The magazine describes it as a record loss of a “golden moment to westernize Ukraine”, irrespectively who would win the presidential elections.

How can we explain the cold attitude of the EU towards Ukraine?

To explain how the prospect of the EU membership can be powerful, author of the article gives example of Turkey.Over the last ten years Turkey has made significant changes: instead of politically clans and debts, loans have emerged, banks are functional and the first understanding of the economy has emerged, the army has been excluded from policy and economy, and the democratic reforms have led to a more open society. For Europe it has cost only a signal of possible accession of Turkey to the EU, and intensive diplomatic reforms for the changes taking place in Turkey.

Why haven’t you given a similar possibility to Ukraine, despite the fact that this its education, industrialization and culture, Ukraine suits more naturally for Europe? One explanation is the time, says the Newsweek. Turks began taking seriously the possible accession in 2002. Turkey has become a candidate before 2005, when the EU was already tired by its enlargement.

But as the deeper explanation can be a lack of vision.

In the case of Ukraine, the EU was more concerned by the short-term plans, than by strategic ambitions. And lost the excellent possibility to stabilize its eastern flank, despite the fact, that Moscow which opposes the accession of Ukraine to NATO, has never been bothered by the EU enlargement.

What role did the Ukrainian elite play?

The Newsweek believes that Ukraine has played a big role itself, in the fact that Brussels has turned its back to Ukraine.

Last year, the EU initiative to improve Ukrainian gas transportation system felt Kyiv’s reluctance to fight corruption and to take the path of transparency.

Recent years due to infighting within the “orange camp”, several rounds of populist spending in the country have been financed mostly by the emission. The rising energy prices have led to a loss of a competitiveness of the steel and metallurgical industry of Ukraine.

The external debt of this year reached $37 billions. This debt could be partly covered by the IMF loan, but the politicians disagree on the painful requirements of the bank. Therefore, it’s quite possible that Kyiv will seek a loan in Moscow. But Moscow has no cash either, but it wants to put hand on Ukrainian gas transportation system and factories.

Does the loss if final?

The agreement with Russia will cost the loss of a big piece of independence to Ukraine. But don’t using a moment, the Europe has betrayed the hopes of Ukrainians and its own interests and ideals, said the magazine.

But it’s not the end. According to surveys, 70% of Ukrainians would like to join the EU, but the risk of major economic meltdown in Ukraine, complicates the task of further integration in Europe.

To rotate this process in 180° seems less attractive to Brussels. But the worst prospect is to have a betrayed state on Eastern border of Europe.

Now Ukraine is obliged to accommodate all the illegal immigrants, who went to the European Union crossing Ukraine. Ukraine and the EU signed an agreement 2 years ago. The experts say that this document is badly done, and Ukraine will become a sort of “waste disposal” for illegal immigrants.
The extradition of one illegal immigrant will cost Ukraine about $1000. His detention in a special center for illegal immigrants will decrease the state budget from $700 up to $800 per month, says radio “Svoboda”.

The EU should help a bit. So the EU will provide €30 millions for the construction of special center for illegal immigrants.

Now the United Nations estimates, that there is about 7 millions of illegal immigrants in Ukraine. According to the boundary guard, 80% between them came to Ukraine crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border which is poorly protected.

Experts say that Ukraine could have much less problems, if eastern border is better protected. For this agreement the EU promised to simplify the visa regime for Ukrainians.

But, in my opinion, the simplification is not enough. Already the citizens of Serbia, Montenegro, and FYROM can travel long the Schengen zone without visa. So, I think, the EU policy towards Ukraine is unfair. In my opinion, the EU has to abolish visa regime for Ukrainians. In such a way, I think, it’ll be fair enough.

What do you think about it?

There is nothing wrong, but the fact that it’s not only the year of Russia in France, but also a year of Kyivan Rus’ in France. At the first glance, it’s difficult to understand what’s the problem. But the problem is that for French people the word Rus’ and Russia are synonyms. So in this way the historical truth is distorted. Since Ukraine is the heart of Rus’, and is the place where began Kyivan Rus’. Kyiv was its capital, as is now the capital of Ukraine.
On the Louvre’s request to send exponents, Ukrainian museums refused to provide this exhibition with their exponents, organized by Louvre under the name of “Holy Russia”. In such a way Ukrainians are boycotting the historical injustice.
The French people believe in “twins” Ukraine and Russia. They do believe that this two nations are fraternal (see the same people). But let’s imagine the situation if the French said that the Roman Empire is the Motherland of France? And the Italians, Spaniards, Romanians and other nations are fraternal or are the same people?
In my opinion, the French people are so arrogant to learn more on this question. For them, pro-Russian information of the French government and mass media are the only truth.
The attitude to my state and people insults me.

“Recognizing that Ukraine as a European country shares a common history and common values with the countries of the European Union, acknowledging the European aspirations of Ukraine and welcoming its European choice…” with such a phrase begins joint declaration of XIII Ukraine – EU Summit.

Involuntarily the question arises, what have been doing the EU representatives with their Ukrainian counterparts last 12 Summits? Probably they were determining that Ukraine is not an African country.

Being serious, Ukraine seeks to sign an agreement on Association and the agreement on a Free Trade Area (FTA) with the EU. And as usual, nothing significant is signed, the general phrases are declared.

I’m wondering, how many Summits more we will organize to cancel the visa regime, to sign and to implement the FTA and the agreement on Association. Place your bets ladies and gentlemen…

Now the second event, not less offensive versus Ukraine. The same day, Montenegro joined the Membership Action Plan in NATO (MAP). I wonder, what criteria the NATO is guided are… Ukraine, with its armed forces, and Montenegro. Who has the best armed forces? Probably Ukraine has.

By the way, I’d like to admit, when Romania joined the NATO, its armed forces was using the MIG-17, old planes, which Ukraine is not using already about 30 years. Probably, Ukraine can’t get the MAP, because NATO is afraid of Russia. So, let’s say “thank you” our northern neighbor.