As we all know, two years ago there was Russian-Georgian war inspired by Russian government and president. Recently about 20% of Georgian territory remains occupied by Russian forces. Russia violates the Mevedev-Sarkozy cease-fire agreement. Russia showed its real face again. The whole world has to understand, that Russia doesn’t obey any international agreement. I really hope that the territorial integrity of Georgia will be restored.

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 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

I have found some interesting info on NATO and threats to the world’s stability etc.
But here, I’d like to write only about the threat with the name of Russia.

So, here’s the chronology of recent facts of intimidation by Russia, presented by the Strategic Studies Group, Foundation for Liberal Research and Studies in Madrid:

January 2009 – Threats to cut the logistics route into Afghanistan
January 2009 – Gas embargo on Ukraine
December 2008 – Russia delivers latest generation anti-air defense systems to Iran
November 2008 – Russian strategic bombers land in Venezuela
November 2008 – Russian naval maneuvers with nuclear ships in the Caribbean
November 2008 – Threats to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad
February 2008 – Threats to point missiles at Ukraine
August 2008 – The invasion of Georgia
February 2007 – Threats to point nuclear missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic
February 2007 – Threats to withdraw from the INF Treaty
April 2007 – Cyberattack of Estonia
January 2007 – Energy embargo against Belarus
June 2007 – Threats to point nuclear missiles at Europe
January 2005 – Russia cuts Ukraine gas supply

Make right conclusions!

The « successful » politic of Kremlin caused the remoteness of former « brother-countries » towards Russia. Tired of always being cadets… According to data from the Policy Research Institute BISS, 54% of Belarus citizens don’t want to build a united state with Russia. 5 years ago, no one in Moscow could imagine such results, even in a nightmare. According to the experts from the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, which answers questions from the Security Council of Russian Federation and for the Russian Parliament, Russia has already lost all its allies in the ex-USSR territory.
So, it’s not us, Ukrainians, those « bad », which « betrayed » Mother-Russia ? Recently, all former satellites started to turn their back on Kremlin. The most Moscow « wins », the most we turn our back on it.
Cubans didn’t appreciate that the country which gave us socialism stopped the economic support. Vietnamese didn’t like that the Russian naval base was closed – that’s still money. Serbs expected the Russian « brothers » to help them, but they remember the way their country was first bombed, and then torn into pieces – Moscow didn’t help at all. The ardent Hugo Chavez is such angry that with his socialist interior, he feels another nature of Kremlin’s oligarchs. Lukashenka – another « enemy » of Russia is even closer to him.
The former Republics of USSR – Baltic states, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia – we just don’t have to recall, they’re already considered as enemies. It’s obvious that in these countries we focus on saying that citizens are not against Russians and Russia, and that they respect their culture. And there is a lot of Russians living there… What’s going on ? Maybe it’s time to look back in the mirror ? Sadly, Russia never wanted to do that.
Experts:
« Russia has an ally : Nicaragua »
Stanislav Kulchytsky, professor and doctor in History Sciences :
You are mistaken when you say that Russia has no friends. We have one, Nicaragua. But Russia, i mean its government, doesn’t want to be friend with anyone. Even the satellite countries, such as Belarus, are cautious with Kremlin’s actions.
Few times ago, I came back from Armenia. The country is totally dependent from Russia, at 100%. It’s the gas and all the economy of the country… And Armenia is in a really hard situation when it has common borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Russian border-keepers control the Armenian-Turkish border.
And here is an officer from the Defense Minister who comes and declares « Armenia is in our pocket ». It’s an open effrontery. The imperial tone, the manners of a boss in a foreign country cause a negative reaction. Recall the recent « do demon » of Ukraine caused by Russian propaganda.
« The Kremlin’s politic is like an ax, clumsy »
Rustem Zhangozha, orientalist :
Statements about the eternal friendship and fraternity in Middle Asia, we do like it. It’s obvious. But the Kremlin’s politic is like an ax, clumsy. We’re not immortal. Berdimuhammedov (President of Turkmenistan), Karimov (President of Uzbekistan) will go away. But in the citizen’s memory will remain, for example, the behavior of Moscow citizens towards the Tajikistani.
The fact they have the image of « stupid people » is not the question. In Dushanbe, a citizen of Moscow who tries to get along in Tajik language will probably look stupid. But people will remember how their relatives was bitten in Moscow, how they were humiliated and killed. In order to arrange the relationships with countries in Middle Asia, we just have to behave with them as equal partners. They have a very nice and old culture, an amazing way of thinking. Here is the point.
« I’m sorry, but the new generation of Russian diplomats sucks »
Alexeï Fedorov, Russian Human Rights keeper :
It’s obvious that in politic there’s no eternal friends. There’re interests. But, thank God, we don’t have real enemies. I focus on the word « enemy » that I won’t use. The economic interests are necessary. The ones who haven’t common interests with Kremlin are considered as « enemies ».
Politicians of all « our former » countries just know only one thing : haggling. And too strict. It’s a practice like that. To me, as a Russian citizen, I’m ashamed of it. The new generation of Russian diplomats are not very encouraging. I’m sorry but they suck. Compared to them, the employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of USSR were much more professional. They vigorously promoted ideas they believed in. They knew about what and with whom they were talking. The ones these days don’t make a difference between European Union and European Parliament. They think about Extreme-Orient when they never visited it.
The arrangement of diplomatic relationships with neighbors would be such a fantastic option, but still impossible : our government listens to the opinions of public and non-governmental organizations. It’s way more efficient. Because the personal relationships with Ukrainians and Belarusians are huge.

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.

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.

The minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko sent a letter of condolence to the minister of foreign affairs and cult of the Republic of Haiti Maria Michelle Ray because of natural disaster in the country, which has provoked many casualties.
“In this painful moment with the Haitian people we share the pain of severe losses. Please accept the sincere condolences and let us express words of support to families and relatives of killed and injured people”.

The minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine has announced that Ukraine will send a mobile hospital to the Republic of Haiti to provide medical assistance to the victims of earthquake.

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.

On the map:
blue – the CIS countries (Russia, Belorus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan)
yellow – Ukraine (not a CIS member)
red – Georgia (not a CIS member)
green – Turkmenistan (not a CIS member)

All believe that Ukraine is a member-state of the CIS. But it is not like this. After singing the agreements on the CIS creation in 1991, Ukraine parliament has never ratified the Charter of this organization. So, in accordance with the international law, Ukraine is not a CIS member. I want to provide you with a data from the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine:
ABOUT THE STATUS OF UKRAINE IN CIS
December 8, 1991, the President of Ukraine signed an Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, according to this Agreement Ukraine became one of the founding-states of the CIS. This agreement was ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine on December 10, 1991, with the restrictions.
December 20, 1991, the Parliament of Ukraine made statement on “Adoption of an agreement on Commonwealth of Independent States by Ukraine”. According to the last paragraph, this statement is an official interpretation of the aforementioned Agreement.
December 21, 1991, Ukraine signed a Protocol to the Agreement on Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, which is its integral part.
In these documents, which are crucial for Ukraine on its participation in the CIS, there is nothing mentioned about the associated membership in the CIS.
Moreover, there is no possibility of associated membership in the Agreement mentioned above and it’s Protocol.
January 22, 1993, by decision of the Council of the CIS the Charter of the CIS was adopted. Ukraine didn’t sign this decision.
According to the part one of Article 8 of this Charter “according to the decision of the head of states only those countries can join the CIS as it’s associated member which have intension to participate in particular ways of the organization’s activities which are defined by the Associated Membership agreement”.
The Associated membership Agreement in accordance with the Charter of the CIS Ukraine didn’t sign.
By the article 7 of the Charter is stipulated that “the founder-states of the Commonwealth are the states, which signed and ratified the Agreement on establishing the CIS and the Protocol thereto”.
The member-states of the Commonwealth are the founder-states which accepted the obligations of the CIS Charter, within one year after its adoption by the Heads of States.
Thus, Ukraine is the one of the founder-states of the Commonwealth of the Independent States, but not a member-state of the CIS, and it is concluded to be the one not signing the decision of the adoption of the CIS Charter.