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.

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.

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?”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One of my friends from France, put me few questions about the presidential elections in Ukraine, and I decided to publish my answers here. I think it’ll be interesting for a lot of people.

1. “This result is a final one, or there will be a second tour?” – February 7, the second tour of elections was held. But they can’t announce a winner now, because Julia Tymochenko will protest the results of elections in the court. So, we’ll know official final results after the court decision.

2. “Is Ukraine politically and economically up to date?” – I think, I didn’t understand this question well, but anyways, I answer you. So, politically Ukraine has more democracy than most Eastern European countries. And it is confirmed by leaders of the United States of America, the European Union, and the rest of the democratic world. Our standards are high. About the economy, so, in 2005 Ukraine has received the status of a country with market economy. In 2008, Ukraine joined the WTO (World Trade Organization). Otherwise, most countries of the former USSR are not WTO members, including Russia. Our banking sector isn’t so developed than in France, but the credit cards are in a big use by the people of Ukraine. It is rare to find a coffee or shop where they do not accept credit cards. Otherwise, everything is like everywhere. Some services are better developed in France, some in Ukraine.

3. “How do you think, is this a good or bad thing (the election results) for the country?” – I think, it’s the shame about such a result for Ukrainian people. A person, I mean Victor Yanukovych, he’s stupid. He makes no difference between Montenegro and Kosovo on one side, and South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other side. I think, it’s a big waste of time. But I think he will not be the president all these 5 years. Because, it’s obvious, he is a bad candidate. Before the election his political party has propagated the idea of increasing social standards. But on wednesday, in the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) his party has given only 2 votes for their bill. So we can see, he doesn’t fulfill his electoral promise. But as the people of Ukraine in the East in general are ill-bred, are not very informed, and the poverty there, so they cannot properly evaluate their candidate.

4. “Does such situation can change something in everyday life for the people?” – No risk. It will not change. Since he was already 2 times a premier-minister, and he made no reform. Ukraine president has less power than premier-minister, so I make a conclusion, he’ll throw in the air his mandate. But it’s for the better.

5. “And compared with Europe, how do you think the things change?” – In my opinion, the sole thing will be changed, foreigners couldn’t come to Ukraine without visas. But the Ukrainian Parliament has already started this process before the elections. And it’s just, because there is no Ukrainian who can come to the EU without a visa.

6. “From what I read, do you not fear a “rapprochement” with Russia and a return to few years you have lived before the Orange Revolution?” – I do not think the “rapprochement” with Russia will be strong, as already economically we can’t be with Russia, because we are a member of the WTO, and they are not there. Also, this year, Ukraine will sign 2 agreements with the EU on political association and the free trade area. So, there’s no chance for Russia to have something common with us. About returning to “inglorious years,” I answer you, it is impossible to change the democratic regime to something like in Russia, because Russian and Ukrainian people are different, Russians prefer to have a czar and Ukrainian prefer to have freedom, it’s historically. Otherwise, what can I say, and it’s not only my opinion, because I share it with many European and American experts, that our removal from the EU is caused by your policy, which would not provide us with all political and economic assistance, but above all political! So, the EU has done nothing to bring us closer, however, the EU has done everything to get closer with Russia (authoritarian state), at the same time abandoning Ukraine (democracy). So, in my opinion, the EU is guilty for 80% and 20% for Ukraine. Including matters of visas, diplomatic and political assistance against Russia (especially against its imperialist appetites), and economic aid during the crisis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What role did the Ukrainian elite play?

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

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

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

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

Does the loss if final?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think about it?

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

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.