Three TV channels (5 channel, TVi, TRK “Chornomorska”) ceased to broadcast for 1 hour (19:00-20:00 Kyiv time) in defense of freedom of speech. It was warning strike, if the government continues to violate freedom of speech, they’ll continue strike.

Public movement “Stop Censorship!” is ready to call on a nationwide journalists strike.

Recently I have found interesting statistic information concerning Ukraine.
In English

1. In 1416 metropolitan of Moscow Photius and cathedral (meeting) of the Russian bishops exposed anathema against metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak. The Moscow church did not recognize the separate metropolis of Kyiv in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and regarded itself as it successor. Gregory was charged with abuse of spiritual power. Photius called him as “a rebel, set up by unfair meeting”. He said: “We consider him as rejected, and excommunicated, and cursed”. The Ukrainian bishops and Constantinople have ignored the curse of Moscow.

2. In XV century the patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople with the consent of pope Pius III ordained the metropolitan of Kyiv Gregory Tsamblak. The Patriarch of Moscow Iona, which has self-proclaimed Russian autocephalous church, has not recognized the metropolitan in Kyiv and exposed anathema against him. He called Gregory as a traitor to Orthodoxy, he called on all the bishops to sever all relations with the metropolitan of Kyiv. Part of Ukrainian bishops have supported the metropolitan. As a consequence, it was the final division of metropolis for Kyiv one and for Moscow one. In 1469 the patriarch of Constantinople Dionysyus I approved Gregory on the cathedra of Kyiv.

3. In 1690 the cathedral (meeting) led by patriarch of Moscow Joachim put the anathema against “heretical cult of bread” – the assertion that the bread and wine become body and blood of Christ, Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox conformed. It was forbidden to read theological works written by Ukrainians, which “have a common vision with the pope and the Western Church”. Among them, there were books written by Petro Mohyla, Kyrylo Stavrovytsky, Luka Baranovych and others. In Ukraine and in several orthodox countries the anathema was never recognized. Because of this, new Moscow patriarch Adrian exposed the anathema against all books of Kyiv Pechersk Laura, published in Ukrainian language.

4. In 1708 the Russian Orthodox Church has put anathema against Ukrainian Hetman Ivan Mazepa because of “betrayal of Christ and the betrayal of great Czar”. This was proclaimed by the Ukrainian bishops in the presence of Peter I in Hlukhiv. They have torn the diplomas and awards of Hetman, and they have learned the doll of Mazepa in the streets. Later, the executioner “executed” the doll on the place. The bishops of Moscow have threatened with excommunication all who wanted to join the Hetman in its “work against God”. In 2009, the Kyiv Patriarchate said: “Russian Orthodox Church established a committee to examine to put away anathema from Hetman. However, in June 2010, the Patriarch of Moscow Cyril asked the authorities of Kyiv to change the name of the street bearing the name of Ivan Mazepa on the name Lavrska. He thinks that the street leading to one of the largest Orthodox shrines, cannot bear the name of the apostate of church.

5. In 1997 the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church has anathematized the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate Filaret. The cathedral (meeting) said: “The monk continued fragmentation of the profane, including religious blasphemy without sacred dignity, had the courage to appoint himself as “Patriarch of Kyiv and of all “Rus-Ukraine” continued his criminal acts to harm Orthodoxy in Ukraine. Filaret did not recognize the anathema. He sees this anathema as an act caused by political reasons. Do not recognize officially the Patriarchate of Kyiv, many people continue to communicate with Filaret, including representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From 10 to 15 million of Ukrainians recognize Patriarch Filaret as their patriarch.

Dear readers, visitors of my blog, today it was reported that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has given to Ukraine a new stand-by credit line in the amount of SDR 10 billion (about $ 15.15 billions), which is administrated for 29 months. SDR 1.25 billion ($1.89 billion) will be available today. I don’t want to analyze the consequences of how it will affect Ukraine, but I’d say one thing, money will not be administrated for the needs of state.

Link for the IMF web-site: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2010/pr10305.htm

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development maintained its forecast of gross domestic product (GDP) of Ukraine this year at 4% and improved it in 2011 from 4% to 4.1%.

According to the update of the regional macro-forecast released on Thursday by the bank, as a result of the fourth quarter of 2010 the GDP growth will be 6% comparing to the same period of 2009, and according to the balance sheet of fourth quarter of 2011 will decrease to zero.

According to estimates made by Bank, the GDP growth in first quarter of this year was 4.9%, while in second quarter it slowed to 2.3%, in third quarter – it will increase to 2.9%.

The EBRD said that, in the fourth quarter of 2009 the decline of GDP was at 7%, a year earlier – 8%.

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?”.

This week the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Ukraine. She met President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, as well as the Ukrainian opposition.
Generally she did not criticize Ukrainian authorities. Although she said that the United States will continue to observe the level of press freedom in Ukraine. On the issue of Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO, she said that she respects the sovereign right of Ukraine in the choice of allies, but stressed that NATO’s door is open.
So, I have a question. Why are that door being open, didn’t let Ukraine to enter when the Ukrainian government had the political will? And besides, what does the visit of H. Clinton mean? Have someone have any ideas?

This year, almost simultaneously, the court of Donetsk refused to consider Stepan Bandera and Roman Choukhevytch as heroes, but the city councils of Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk gave them the title of Citizens of honor.
The same people for the same actions are considered in one case as heroes and in the other case as criminals, and this is not a personal preference, but decisions of state institutions.
If such an assessment could be heard about this issue from Moscow and Tbilisi, Tehran and Washington, it would be clear that these warring parties are diametrically opposed in their evaluations. But Donetsk, Ternopil are not combatants, they are situated in the same country.
So we can consider this fact as a form of complicated schizophrenia.
The dual personality of a state occurs when two different civilizations coexist in one country.

Civilizational paradigm

This term has gained popularity in political science after the book named “The Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel Huntington published in 1996 – “. When the global conflict between communism and capitalism is over, the author considers the clash of civilizations as the main conflict in modern history.
A civilization can be created by a group of nations and countries, for example, the modern Western civilization. It is also possible that one country forms just one civilization, like China.
It may also happen that two civilizations exist simultaneously in a single country.
Huntington calls these countries as “divided countries”. Such as: Sudan, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Ukraine. However, he determines a dividing line and its nature in Ukraine without deep analysis, that’s where he is wrong.
The conflict that divides Ukraine, according to Huntington, is a conflict between Western and Orthodox civilizations. “Western civilization” in Ukraine is represented by the residential areas of the Greek Catholics. So the dividing line should be placed on the territory between Galicia and Volyn and the rest of Ukraine.
As visual confirmation, Huntington uses the results of voting in presidential elections of 1994. At that time, the dividing line was at the eastern border region of Kyiv, Cherkasy, and south of the Cherkasy region, Vinnytsia. But it is clear that these regions are not Greek Catholic, if we take into account the dominant faith.
The results of the presidential elections of 2004 and 2010 and parliamentary elections of 2007 are even more revealing.
The results provide a stable line, which shows that the “western” Ukraine includes the regions of Chernihiv, Sumy and Poltava, which neither geographically nor by religion belong to the line drawn by Huntington.
The stability of such a division is enough to analyze its nature. It is clear it’s not religious. The same Orthodox people live in the two sides of the dividing line.
According to Huntington, in the eastern side of the dividing line lives “the Orthodox civilization.” But more specifically we call this civilization “Russian” or “Eurasian”. Now Russia, including its Muslim population, created a special independent civilization, which also includes the Central Asian republics of the former USSR, which have become independent countries, without leaving the Russian cultural area.
So, the religious definition of civilization is not correct. It includes the Orthodox and Muslims, and also many atheists, formed as a result of Soviet anti-religious policy.
So it is logical that the civilizational division in Ukraine has no religious specification.

The oldest proof

“Kyiv was invaded in March, the twentieth day, Wednesday of the second week of Lent. And they have looted the entire city for two days. And there was no pity: the churches were burning, the Christians were killed, others were captured, and also women, children cried while watching their parents killed.
And they took a lot of goods, and have stolen things in the churches, and they have removed the bells … and all the shrines were also looted. And even the monastery of Saint-Mary of Lavra was burning, but God through the prayers of St. Mary, saved it.”
This is an excerpt from a report about the total theft and destruction of Kyiv in 1169. This is neither the Kumans, nor the Mongols, this is the army of Grand Duke of Vladimir Andrei I Bogolyubsky and other princes, that he has invited to the case.
Serious conflicts, including murder, were common under the Rurik dynasty. The march on Kyiv of princes of Rus’ is not surprising, the innovation of the Grand Duke Andrei I Bogolyubsky was the fact that he did not want to get the city, but he also wanted to destroy Kyiv.
But why? It was not a civil or religious war. The act of the Grand Duke Andrei did not seem motivated, even the reason for the destruction of Kyiv is absent in the chronicle.
The explanation given by Hrushevskyi seems to be plausible.
Imagine that the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal is America of Kyivan Rus’, it started to develop quickly during the reign of Andrei I Bogolyubsky. Andrei has created that principality as an autocratic state from the very beginning, the beginning of a future Russian absolutism and despotism. So we can understand its relationship with Kyiv.
Hrushevskyi writes, for Andrei “historical traditions related to Kyiv were not nice… this infinite gallery of Princes, the influence of the boyars and the political role of communities. There was no hope to overcome the situation, and Andrei did everything to destroy, humiliate Kyiv.”
If Hrushevskyi is right, the destruction of Kyiv by Grand Duke Andrei can be considered as the first sign of the conflict of civilizations between the Western and the Eurasian.
Although these civilizations did not exist at that time, they were going to settle few centuries later.

Testimonials of Sigismund von Herberstein

In the early sixteenth century in Western Europe there was no expert more enlightened about the countries of Eastern Europe and the Muscovy than Sigismund von Herbertsein, a distinguished diplomat of the Habsburg Royal House.
It reflects the unprecedented power of the Czar in Moscow: “The authority he has on people exceeds the one of all the monarchs of the world … He oppresses everyone and aggravates the slavery. If he gives an order to someone to be in his court or go to war, or be an ambassador, he must obey orders at his own funds.”
Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Stalin were not yet born – but the possibility of a servile use of any person is undeniable. In addition, it is the accepted norm in society.
“These people are happier in slavery than in freedom” – this sentence from Herberstein has become a stamp to determine the merits of the political culture of Russia in the centuries to come.
And what about the European part of Rus’?
At that time it was Lithuania which in the description of Herberstein, extended from Livonia (modern Latvia) to Cherkassy (modern Ukraine). So, at that time, the European part of Rus’ was composed mainly of land of modern Belarus and modern Ukraine.
This is not surprising that Lithuania was predominantly Orthodox, and not Catholic. According to Herberstein, most famous Lithuanians of the time were the Dukes Konstanty Ostrozky and Mychaylo Hlynsky, native Volhyniens and not Lithuanians at all.
Another fact: the original version of “The Lithuanian Statute” was written in Ruthenia language in XVI century.
The lack of authority of the monarch of Lithuania to his subjects surprised Herberstein, especially compared with Muscovy. The Lithuanian magnates, he said, “do not use so much freedom and goodness of their King, but they abuse it.”
It is difficult to imagine a greater contrast between the neighbor countries, political freedom in Lithuania and the serious despotism of the Muscovy.

Where the dividing line is?

As you can see, we can found in ancient history, incredible testimonies with fundamental difference between two political cultures. The place of this line today can be demonstrated very effectively by many criteria, including the most obvious – the electoral geography.
All national elections from 2004 to 2010 give the same line:

I do not know who firstly noticed that this line is the historical border of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the seventeenth century.
I think that the first was Mykola Ryabtchuk who wrote about this division line: “The Polish-Lithuanian… Commonwealth was not an ideal place to live, but it was another civilization than Muscovy. People used to live a long time outside of Russia and the Soviet Union. The south and east, pay attention to this, have never lived outside the USSR or Russia…”
Stanislav Bilytchenko made another interesting geographical comparison: This map shows the distribution of the Ukrainian language as mother tongue according to the latest census. The fact is that this division is not accidental, is also confirmed by a research from the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, where it is proved that in Ukraine the political choice is not based on political platforms but on national feelings.
And finally one more thing on the dividing line.
Here is an excerpt from a press release of GFK about the results of the survey on Ukraine’s accession to the EU carried out 16 May 2010. “The inhabitants of central and western regions, and also Kyiv support the possible accession of Ukraine to the EU – 69%, 61% and 60% respectively. At the same time the inhabitants of eastern and southern express more actively against membership – 35% and 31% respectively. »
A direct question about the civilizational identity – a straight answer about who is who.

Possible variants

In the conflict of two civilizations, in this case of Western and Eurasian civilizations in a single country, the following developments are possible:
1. Eurasian civilization conquers Western civilization.
2. Western civilization conquers the Eurasian civilization.
3. The status quo is preserved.
4. Each of the warring civilizations creates its own separate state.
Option 1. The easier one. This is the situation of the last three hundred years, but significantly reducing positions of Eurasians compared to previous years.
First, we must say they do not dominate by number, just as when Ukraine was a part of Russia and the USSR. Secondly, they have no repressive forces as they used to have in the USSR. Therefore, the total removal of the representatives of the other civilization, as it used to be after the accession of Western Ukraine to the USSR, does not seem to be real. At least, the required repressive apparatus is not yet renewed.
So the future development of this option would be – the repressive use of Ministry of Interior, Security Service of Ukraine, the Prosecutor’s Office, courts, tax services primarily against political opponents and journalists, and then against all dissidents.
Option 2. The least likely due to two factors. Firstly, there is no significant advantage of number in Ukraine, and secondly, the total inability to act together and strictly.
The presence of these two factors in Latvia and Estonia has brought a quick victory to Western civilization.
In Ukraine, even in the 2005-2009 period, when there was a chance to conquer the population of Eurasian cultural regions, there was no action. These regions were not – de facto – subordinated to the center, which was just pretending to manage them.
It remains the possibility of a peaceful conquest, the gradual cultural acquisition. It’s theoretically possible, but the process can take a considerable amount of time. We never noticed any sign of this process over the past 20 years.
Option 3. In practice, this can be accomplished by the division of power among the representatives of both cultures.
The country is divided administratively into equal numbers of Eurasian and Western lands, which form proportionally a federal parliament, split the posts of President and Prime Minister. Much of the power and budget remain at the level of the land.
This construction is possible, but very unstable. The change of social groups, the contradiction of the new social balance to the old political structure, the intervention of the extremists – all this issues build up over the years and imbalance the situation. And we go to one of three options.
Option 4. Representatives of each of the two civilizations do not want to consider this option because both parts think subconsciously, that one of it can overcome the other part and dominate the whole territory.
They are all for a united Ukraine. Maybe they are right, more specifically – one of them. But this remains very hypothetical.
This dominance in any case will be violent.
Nobody can persuade the other party. Furthermore, nobody wants to convince the other party.
We then choose consciously violent conquest of representatives of a culture by the representatives of the other. On balance there is on one side, the negative of the preservation of a violent state, and the other side – the ill process of creating of two states civilly homogeneous, mostly less confrontational.
Today nobody is going to say on which side will tip the balance. It’s clear that we cannot live like this anymore. But how it’s possible? This is not yet clear.
May God give Ukraine the forces to implement the option that will bring misfortune to less people as possible. And may God gives us the spirit of finding this option.

http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2010/06/11/5126765/

Kyiv district administrative court deprived frequencies for broadcast from “Channel 5” and “TVi”.
The general producer of “TVi” channel Serhiy Demyanchuk accuses the head of the Security Service of Ukraine Valeriy Khoroshkovsky in using his official position to gain his business interests. Valeriy Khoroshkovsky uses his position not only to protect his own business, what is generally unacceptable in a democratic society, but to oppress other media, including “TVi” and “Channel 5”. This situation threatens freedom of speech in Ukraine.
I urge all international organizations and leaders of the EU countries and the United States of America to condemn such actions. I want to draw attention to the actions of government putting pressure on freedom of speech in Ukraine. It is unacceptable in the European country. Especially I ask organization “Reporters without borders” to react!

Ex-chairman of the SBU Valentyn Nalyvaychenko considers as a serious threat to Ukraine’s national security activities of some foreign intelligence services.
In an interview to the Mass media Mr. Horoshkovsky said that the detained in February 2010, Russian intelligence officer Vladimir Alexandrov convicted by the Ukrainian court under the Article of espionage.
However the head of the SBU doesn’t consider a threat to national security of Ukraine the return of a number of FSB employees to Ukraine, in the Black Sea Fleet.
Deputy Russian ambassador to Ukraine Vsevolod Loskutov is agree with Mr. Horoshkovsky, who claims that Russian special service officers work in every military unit and will serve on the Black Sea fleet and it is an absurd to speak about the threat to national security of Ukraine.
Experts recall that the FSB employees’ return to Ukraine was possible after the introduction of a new government.
Even before the presidential election about 20 officers of Russian security services which were ensuring the security of the Black Sea Fleet, in December last year left Ukraine.
But this May, the SBU and FSB have agreed on their return.
Experts remind that for the second half of 2009 and in 2010 the Security Service of Ukraine arrested at least 10 spies, including Russians.
According to former head of the SBU Mr. Nalyvaichenko, the biggest is not disappeared.
This threat to the territorial integrity of Ukraine still remains.

Top secret

Order No. 0078/42 22 June 1944

The People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs and the People’s Commissariat of Defense of the USSR
Moscow

The undercover intelligence discovered: the last time in Ukraine, particularly in the region of Kyiv, Poltava, Vinnytsia, Rivne and in other regions, there is obvious hostile atmosphere against the Red Army and Soviet government. In some districts and regions Ukrainian people opposes to exercise the events of party and of government about the restoration of kolkhozes and (forced) delivery the meal for the needs of the Red Army. To disrupt the construction of collective farms, they kill cattle. To disrupt the food supply for the Red Army, they bury the bread in the ground. In many regions of Ukraine the hostile elements consisted mostly of people seeking refuge from the mobilization to Red Army, were organized in the “green” woods groups that explode and attack military convoys and small military units, as well as they are murdering the representatives of local soviet government. Some Red Army soldiers and commanders fell under the influence of the semi-fascist and Ukrainian soldiers mobilized by the Red Army in the liberated regions of Ukraine have begun to degrade and to call on enemy.
What is written above shows that the Ukrainian population has been on the path of sabotage against the Red Army and Soviet power and sought to return the German occupiers. Therefore, to eliminate and control the Red Army soldiers mobilized and commanders of the liberated areas of Ukraine, I order:

1. To deport all Ukrainians who lived under German occupation to the distant regions of the USSR.
2. Run the expulsion:
a) Above all, Ukrainians who have worked and served for the Germans;
b) Expel the rest of the Ukrainians, who are familiar with life during the German occupation;
c) begin deportation after when the harvest will be delivered to the State for the purposes of the Red Army;
d) expulsion should be carried out only at night and suddenly, to prevent the cases of escape, and not introduce them to family members who are in the Red Army.
3. Establish control over the soldiers of the Red Army and the commanders from the occupied areas:
a) create special files for each person in the responsible departments;
b) check all the letters not by censorship but by a special department;
c) attach one undercover officer for 5 commanders and soldiers.
4. 4. To fight against the Anti-Soviet bandits, 12th and 25th punitive divisions of NKVD should be transferred.

To announce this order down to the level of regiment commanders inclusive.

The People’s Commissioner for Internal Affairs of the USSR, Beria
Deputy Commissioner of the popular defense of the USSR, Marshal of the Soviet Union Zhukov
True: 4th Department Head colonel (Fedorov)

On materials of Chuev F.: Soldiers of the Empire: Interviews. Memoirs. Documents. – Moscow, 1998

Hello my dear readers. I’m sorry, that I haven’t writing so long. I was waiting until a certain amount of interesting events will be enough, and we’ve got already enough of it.

I’d like to begin with expression of my protest against actions of Ukrainian President and the Government and Parliament of Ukraine! I, as a citizen of Ukraine, annoyed over the current affairs in Ukrainian foreign and domestic policy!

On April 27, 2010 the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) has betrayed Ukraine. The agreement on the prolongation of stay for 25 years in Crimea (Ukraine) for Black Sea Fleet of Russian Federation was ratified. 236 deputies from 450 have voted “for”. Half of the deputies from the Party of Regions were not at the voting place. They were blocking the tribune. Thus, 160 deputies from Party of Regions voted “for”, including Rinat Akhmetov, who was absent in the Hall, who were blocking the tribune.

I think, it’s simply unnecessary to explain how much this event is negative for Ukraine and its national security. Because, as everyone knows, state which has on its territory a foreign military base – it’s always some threat to the sovereignty and independence of foreign and domestic policy.

If we have a look at other aspects, so simply there are no words to describe how much the new Ukrainian government betrayed national interests during just 50 days. Bill on prohibition of Ukrainian dubbing films, introduction of mandatory study of Russian language in schools, attempts to rewrite history by creation a joint Russian-Ukrainian textbook, providing Russia with Ukrainian aircraft industry, energy transport sector as well as many other events make me ponder, which was the price (in €) for national treason…

I hope, the Ukrainian opposition together with the Ukrainian people will prevent the adoption of such laws! Everything’s in our hands.

This past week saw another key success in Russia’s resurgence in former Soviet territory when pro-Russian forces took control of Kyrgyzstan.

The Kyrgyz revolution was quick and intense. Within 24 hours, protests that had been simmering for months spun into countrywide riots as the president fled and a replacement government took control. The manner in which every piece necessary to exchange one government for another fell into place in such a short period discredits arguments that this was a spontaneous uprising of the people in response to unsatisfactory economic conditions. Instead, this revolution appears prearranged.

A PREARRANGED REVOLUTION

Opposition forces in Kyrgyzstan have long held protests, especially since the Tulip Revolution in 2005 that brought recently ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to power. But various opposition groupings never were capable of pulling off such a full revolution — until Russia became involved.

In the weeks before the revolution, select Kyrgyz opposition members visited Moscow to meet with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. STRATFOR sources in Kyrgyzstan reported the pervasive, noticeable presence of Russia’s Federal Security Service on the ground during the crisis, and Moscow readied 150 elite Russian paratroopers the day after the revolution to fly into Russian bases in Kyrgyzstan. As the dust began to settle, Russia endorsed the still-coalescing government.

There are quite a few reasons why Russia would target a country nearly 600 miles from its borders (and nearly 1,900 miles from capital to capital), though Kyrgyzstan itself is not much of a prize. The country has no economy or strategic resources to speak of and is highly dependent on all its neighbors for foodstuffs and energy. But it does have a valuable geographic location.

Central Asia largely comprises a massive steppe of more than a million square miles, making the region easy to invade. The one major geographic feature other than the steppe are the Tien Shan mountains, a range that divides Central Asia from South Asia and China. Nestled within these mountains is the Fergana Valley, home to most of Central Asia’s population due to its arable land and the protection afforded by the mountains. The Fergana Valley is the core of Central Asia.

To prevent this core from consolidating into the power center of the region, the Soviets sliced up the Fergana Valley between three countries. Uzbekistan holds the valley floor, Tajikistan the entrance to the valley and Kyrgyzstan the highlands surrounding the valley. Kyrgyzstan lacks the economically valuable parts of the valley, but it does benefit from encircling it. Control of Kyrgyzstan equals control of the valley, and hence of Central Asia’s core.
Moreover, the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek is only 120 miles from Kazakhstan’s largest city (and historic and economic capital), Almaty. The Kyrgyz location in the Tien Shan also gives Kyrgyzstan the ability to monitor Chinese moves in the region. And its highlands also overlook China’s Tarim Basin, part of the contentious Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.

Given its strategic location, control of Kyrgyzstan offers the ability to pressure Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China. Kyrgyzstan is thus a critical piece in Russia’s overall plan to resurge into its former Soviet sphere.

THE RUSSIAN RESSURGENCE

Russia’s resurgence is a function of its extreme geographic vulnerability. Russia lacks definable geographic barriers between it and other regional powers. The Russian core is the swath of land from Moscow down into the breadbasket of the Volga region. In medieval days, this area was known as Muscovy. It has no rivers, oceans or mountains demarcating its borders. Its only real domestic defenses are its inhospitable weather and dense forests. This led to a history of endless invasions, including depredations by everyone from Mongol hordes to Teutonic knights to the Nazis.

To counter this inherent indefensibility, Russia historically has adopted the principle of expansion. Russia thus has continually sought to expand far enough to anchor its power in a definable geographic barrier — like a mountain chain — or to expand far enough to create a buffer between itself and other regional powers. This objective of expansion has been the key to Russia’s national security and its ability to survive. Each Russian leader has understood this. Ivan the Terrible expanded southwest into the Ukrainian marshlands, Catherine the Great into the Central Asian steppe and the Tien Shan and the Soviet Union into much of Eastern and Central Europe.

Russia’s expansion has been in four strategic directions. The first is to the north and northeast to hold the protection offered by the Ural Mountains. This strategy is more of a “just-in-case” expansion. Thus, in the event Moscow should ever fall, Russia can take refuge in the Urals and prepare for a future resurgence. Stalin used this strategy in World War II when he relocated many of Russia’s industrial towns to Ural territory to protect them from the Nazi invasion.
The second is to the west toward the Carpathians and across the North European Plain. Holding the land up to the Carpathians — traditionally including Ukraine, Moldova and parts of Romania — creates an anchor in Europe with which to protect Russia from the southwest. Meanwhile, the North European Plain is the one of the most indefensible routes into Russia, offering Russia no buffer. Russia’s objective has been to penetrate as deep into the plain as possible, making the sheer distance needed to travel across it toward Russia a challenge for potential invaders.

The third direction is south to the Caucasus. This involves holding both the Greater and Lesser Caucasus mountain ranges, creating a tough geographic barrier between Russia and regional powers Turkey and Iran. It also means controlling Russia’s Muslim regions (like Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan), as well as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The fourth is to the east and southeast into Siberia and Central Asia. The Tien Shan mountains are the only geographic barrier between the Russian core and Asia; the Central Asian steppe is, as its name implies, flat until it hits Kyrgyzstan’s mountains.

With the exception of the North European Plain, Russia’s expansion strategy focuses on the importance of mountains — the Carpathians, the Caucasus and Tien Shan — as geographic barriers. Holding the land up to these definable barriers is part of Russia’s greater strategy, without which Russia is vulnerable and weak.

The Russia of the Soviet era attained these goals. It held the lands up to these mountain barriers and controlled the North European Plain all the way to the West German border. But its hold on these anchors faltered with the fall of the Soviet Union. This collapse began when Moscow lost control over the fourteen other states of the Soviet Union. The Soviet disintegration did not guarantee, of course, that Russia would not re-emerge in another form. The West — and the United States in particular — thus saw the end of the Cold War as an opportunity to ensure that Russia would never re-emerge as the great Eurasian hegemon.

To do this, the United States began poaching among the states between Russia and its geographic barriers, taking them out of the Russian sphere in a process that ultimately would see Russian influence contained inside the borders of Russia proper. To this end, Washington sought to expand its influence in the countries surrounding Russia. This began with the expansion of the U.S. military club, NATO, into the Baltic states in 2004. This literally put the West on Russia’s doorstep (at their nearest point, the Baltics are less than 100 miles from St. Petersburg) on one of Russia’s weakest points on the North European Plain.

Washington next encouraged pro-American and pro-Western democratic movements in the former Soviet republics. These were the so-called “color revolutions,” which began in Georgia in 2003 and moved on to Ukraine in 2004 and Kyrgyzstan in 2005. This amputated Russia’s three mountain anchors.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine proved a breaking point in U.S.-Russian relations, however. At that point, Moscow recognized that the United States was seeking to cripple Russia permanently. After Ukraine turned orange, Russia began to organize a response.

THE WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY

Russia received a golden opportunity to push back on U.S. influence in the former Soviet republics and redefine the region thanks to the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the crisis with Iran. Its focus on the Islamic world has left Washington with a limited ability to continue picking away at the former Soviet space or to counter any Russian responses to Western influence. Moscow knows Washington won’t stay fixated on the Islamic world for much longer, which is why Russia has accelerated its efforts to reverse Western influence in the former Soviet sphere and guarantee Russian national security.

In the past few years, Russia has worked to roll back Western influence in the former Soviet sphere country by country. Moscow has scored a number of major successes in 2010. In January, Moscow signed a customs union agreement to economically reintegrate Russia with Kazakhstan and Belarus. Also in January, a pro-Russian government was elected in Ukraine. And now, a pro-Russian government has taken power in Kyrgyzstan.

The last of these countries is an important milestone for Moscow, given that Russia does not even border Kyrgyzstan. This indicates Moscow must be secure in its control of territory from the Russian core across the Central Asian Steppe.

As it seeks to roll back Western influence, Russia has tested a handful of tools in each of the former Soviet republics. These have included political pressure, social instability, economic weight, energy connections, security services and direct military intervention. Thus far, the pressure brought on by its energy connections — as seen in Ukraine and Lithuania — has proved most useful. Russia has used the cutoffs of supplies to hurt the countries and garner a reaction from Europe against these states. The use of direct military intervention — as seen in Georgia — also has proved successful, with Russia now holding a third of that country’s land. Political pressure in Belarus and Kazakhstan has pushed the countries into signing the aforementioned customs union. And now with Kyrgyzstan, Russia has proved willing to take a page from the U.S. playbook and spark a revolution along the lines of the pro-Western color revolutions. Russian strategy has been tailor-made for each country, taking into account their differences to put them into Moscow’s pocket — or at least make them more pragmatic toward Russia.

Thus far, Russia has nearly returned to its mountain anchors on each side, though it has yet to sew up the North European Plain. And this leaves a much stronger Russia for the United States to contend with when Washington does return its gaze to Eurasia.

THIS REPORT IS PUBLISHED WITH A PERMISSION OF STRATFOR

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.

In late 2009, Ukraine signed a contract with Iraq to supply weapons of the total amount of $ 2.4 billion. It is the largest contract for the supply of weapons in the history of Ukraine.

The United States helped Ukraine to get such contract. According to the U.S. Congress, Ukraine is among the ten largest exporters of weapons. This agreement will put Ukraine on 5th or 6th place in the world arms trade. This contract will provide with work 80 Ukrainian enterprises.

Ukraine will supply to Iraq armored vehicles, tanks, small arms and aircrafts.

I want to remind, that this month Ukraine signed a contract with India to upgrade 105 AN-32 aircrafts.

Note. AN-32 (NATO codification: Cline) – Ukrainian military transport multipurpose aircraft. Can operate in different climatic conditions, including conditions of hot climate (50 °C) and high airfields (up to 4500 m). The main purpose of the aircraft – cargo lines of small and medium-haul. You can use it to transport people, parachute landing people and cargo platforms, as well as sanitary option for transporting the wounded.

On March 11, 2010 Dmytro Tabachnyk was appointed as minister of education and science of Ukraine. Immediately on March 12, 2010 the discontent of Ukrainian intelligentsia raised.

Let’s explain what exactly caused it. You have to understand who this Mr. Dmytro Tabachnyk is. The data from “Wikipedia”: Dmytro Tabachnyk was born on November 26, 1963 in Kyiv. He is a Ukrainian Russian-oriented politician. He is a doctor, professor, academician of the Academy of Science of Ukraine. He officially recognizes Ukrainians as “Little Russians” as a part of the “Russian people”. He makes an anti-Ukrainian xenophobic policy. A lot of social and political forces consider his views as radical anti-Ukrainian sentiment (Ukrainophobia).

As a result of such an appointment was a creation of “AntiTabachna campaign” or “Tabachnyk, go away!”. This campaign reflects the protest of the Ukrainian public, students and youth’ organizations, local governments, political parties, employees of education and science structures for the dismissal of the minister of education and science of Ukraine, known ukrainophobe Dmytro Tabachnyk. Launched in March of 2010.

I’d really like to know whether or not the civilized world has such precedents (excluding the former colonies). If someone has the answer, please, write in comments.

Today let’s speak about the economic freedom. There is no universally accepted term of “economic freedom”. By definition of “Wikipedia” the Economic freedom is a breadth of economic behavior of economic entities in the choice of ownership and the scope of their abilities, knowledge, capabilities, skills, methods of income distribution, consumption of material goods; is realized on the basis of state laws; the economic responsibility of citizens.

The one indicator among other which indicates that Ukraine is not an economically free country is the fact, that holders of bank cards cannot receive money through the payment system as “Paypal”. Of course, we can buy something, but we can’t receive money nor withdraw it. And all this is just because of Ukrainian law “On foreign economic activity” and general policy of the Ukrainian government to prevent implementation of any elementary operations with money in Ukraine.

Let me show you a fact, according to the “2010 Index of Economic Freedom“, which is a foundation of “The Heritage Foundation“, Ukraine got the 162^nd place among 179^th. According to the same foundation, our economic freedom is at the “repressed” level. ”Neighbors” of Ukraine were Togo (161^st place) and Liberia (163^rd place). North Korea was last and took 179^th place.

Let’s look at others former USSR countries. Turkmenistan (171^st place) is the sole country which slipped below Ukraine. Also, there are Belarus (150^th palce) and Uzbekistan (158^th place) in the rank of “repressed economic freedoms”. Russia (143^rd place) and Moldova (125^th place) are in the rank of “mostly economically unfree”. For example, Georgia (26^th place) is in the rank of “mostly economically free”.

Let’s make conclusions!

PS. You can find all data here

Everyone knows that Ukraine is one of the most affected by the global financial crisis among the European states. Despite the fact that this year the proposition of $ and € exceeded the demand. And some other positive moments in macroeconomic system of Ukraine, the problem remains.

Today I decided to share my opinions about the development prospects and pension system reforms in Ukraine. I hope it’ll be interesting for you, if somebody’s still reading me.

The urgent issue for Ukrainian economy in overcoming the crisis is to balance the state budget by reducing spending. So, ideally, it would be nice to bring the deficit in Ukrainian budget to 2% of GDP. But most likely it’s impossible because of number of economic, but primarily, because of political reasons. Let’s speak about it a bit later.

Inadequate fiscal policy pushes away the potential investors from the Ukrainian market. Ukraine has to create a fair business environment through the elimination of tax exemptions that exist in business operations with Cyprus.

In the pension sector, the situation is developing in such scenario that soon the government won’t fulfill its obligations to pensioners. However, there is a way out. In Ukraine there is a problem of a big difference between pensions. There are people who get about 3125$ as pension, and there are a lot of people who earn just some 125$ per month as a pension. By reducing the large pensions we can redirect that money to increase a low pensions or their financing.

As about political reasons, which make it impossible to conduct an adequate fiscal policy, there are:
1. President’s and its team populist’s electoral promises
2. Unwillingness to realize the complexity of Ukraine’s economic situation
3. Lack of political will to carry out unpopular reforms and restoration of cooperation with the IMF and the World Bank Group

I hope for the rationality of the new president of Ukraine and the government.

PS. Maybe someone has some thoughts about it? If so, please leave them in the comments.

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 prospects of development of Ukrainian-Russian relations

The fact, that there will be changes in foreign policy doesn’t make people doubt. And, therefore, analyzing the rhetoric of leader of Party of Regions and the recent statements made by Victor Yanukovych, the course will be referred again to the intensification of relations with Russia.

Several other Yanukovych’s statements and speeches confirmed his stable “pro-Russian” position.

Otherwise, Yanukovych’s position seems to be not so complaisant against the appetites of the “northern neighbor”. Particularly, he said, that the “format of relations between Ukraine and NATO is set for the moment”, and the Euro-Atlantic integration of Kyiv is not the current issue, this question will be decided on the national referendum.

As for the Russian language – new team offers only “implementation of European Charter for regional or minority languages”, thus, there is nothing about the status of “second state language”, as Moscow wants.

Ukraine – NATO

The question of Euro-Atlantic integration for Ukraine is one of the most “sensitive”, than prospects of EU membership. On the other hand, is a separated “chapter” in Ukrainian – Russian dialogue, in which 2 sided occupied different points of view.

According to “Radio Svoboda”, Medvedev thanked the employees of the FSB during a meeting with representatives of the Russian security services “for the implementation of important measures that prevented Ukraine to join NATO”.

However, the situation is not so pessimistic. In February, Ukraine began implementing the National Annual Program 2010. This document, which basically covers content of the Membership Action Plan in NATO (also known as MAP), defines a new form of cooperation with NATO.

It should also be mentioned that Ukrainian experts actively participate in the development of a new strategic concept of NATO, which is important itself.

Ukraine – EU

As for the European prospects of Ukraine, according to most experts, there will be no “significant progress”. Otherwise, the first thing that Yanukovych has seen himself is “the assurance of energy security of Europe” through the “creation of a consortium on gas transportation”, where each participant (Ukraine, Russia, the EU) would receive 33.3% of shares.

Regional leadership of Ukraine

Continuing the topic of European integration, Ukraine should not forget the “Eastern Partnership” initiative. The plan for this project involves the strengthening of relations between the EU and its eastern neighbors (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine).

Otherwise, the initiative aims to strengthen the horizontal linkages between participant countries, where the regional leadership objectively belongs to Ukraine.

However, this perspective does not suit Russia. Moreover, since the very beginning, Moscow has strongly demanded the EU, because of the Eastern Partnership Moscow would lose its own “spheres of influence” in the post-Soviet countries.

So, after coming to power of the new political team in Ukraine (more loyal to the positions of Moscow) we can assume, we should not expect much of the “Eastern Partnership”. The project will lose its weight.