DOCSLIB.ORG

Ukraine's Stable Instability Elena Kropatcheva

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ukraine's Stable Instability Elena Kropatcheva In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2009, Baden-Baden 2010, pp. 137-152. Elena Kropatcheva Ukraine’s Stable Instability Let crayfish, swan and pike Draw heavy loaded cart, Each being just a part Of harness they dislike. They try a lot, and everyone Starts pulling it with zeal; The problem is that each of them With his path wants to deal!1 Five years have passed since mass protests against falsified presidential elec- tion results led to the change of government in Ukraine known as the “Or- ange Revolution”. This was also the end of the presidency of Leonid Kuchma, which was characterized by its scandals. His rule was criticized for increased corruption, governmental control of the mass media, unfair elec- tions, and a general lack of democracy, as well as an uncertain foreign policy orientation that vacillated between Russia and the West. What has changed since then? During these five years we have got used to following reports on Ukraine’s almost annual elections, the resulting political crises and quarrels among its political leaders, problems in Russian-Ukrainian relations, espe- cially “gas wars”, and internal divisions between pro-Western and pro- Russian regions. 2009 was an especially difficult year, as Ukraine was gravely affected by the world economic crisis. This contribution looks at Ukraine’s “stable instability” with a focus on events in the year 2008-2009. It considers Ukraine’s political, economic, and regional instability (with refer- ence to the example of Crimea) as well as the disharmony of its foreign pol- icy. However, it also points out some of Ukraine’s important achievements. The contribution shows that Ukraine is in the midst of many conflicts: intern- al – between its own officials, and between supporters of different foreign policy courses, and external – between Russia and the West. Note: The author would like to thank Boris Kazansky for his invaluable support during the re- search for this article. 1 Ivan Krylov, Crayfish, Swan and Pike, 1814. The English translation can be found at: http://allpoetry.com/poem/2283813. 137 In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2009, Baden-Baden 2010, pp. 137-152. Political Instability Since the “Orange Revolution”, the main political forces in Ukraine have not only been constantly engaged in election campaigns (there was a presidential election in 2004, and will be another in 2010; parliamentary elections were held in 2006 and 2007, and the next are due in 2012) and personal political struggles, but have even come to physical blows. Victor Yanukovych, the leader of “Our Ukraine”, the party with the pro-Russian reputation, who was Victor Yushchenko’s opponent in presidential elections in 2004, has been strengthening his positions vis-à-vis pro-Western Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and President Yushchenko. His party has prevented the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, from meeting on more than one oc- casion by blocking access to the rostrum or the entrance to the parliament chamber.2 But even more strikingly, Yulia Tymoshenko and Victor Yushchenko, the former partners in the “Orange Revolution”, have become serious competitors and even adversaries, accusing each other of various mis- deeds. Since the parliamentary elections in 2006, governing coalitions have been formed and reformed.3 However, the main issues of disagreement con- cerning Ukraine’s domestic and foreign policies remain the same, as do per- sonal political ambitions and animosities. As a result, elections take place, coalitions change, but the main actors do not, and there is a striking continu- ity in that the major political forces are unable to find compromises or work- ing formulas.4 In the spring of 2007, President Yushchenko dissolved the parliament, and new elections were held in the autumn of that year. In 2009, there was again speculation that Yushchenko, fearing that the parliament under the leadership of Tymoshenko would limit his presidential authority, might dis- solve the Rada once more.5 In January 2006, Ukraine adopted a parliamentary-presidential system of government, but it remains unclear what this means and how powers between the president and the parliament (headed by the prime minister) should be distributed. As Prime Minister Tymoshenko herself admits: “‘Semi’ systems do not divide powers clearly and are there- 2 See, for example: BYuT razoblachil plan Partii Regionov po rospusku Rady [BYUT has uncovered the plan of the Party of Regions for the dissolution of the Rada], Lenta.ru, 12 May 2009. 3 In 2007, President Yushchenko dissolved parliament. In September 2008, the coalition that had been formed after the pre-term parliamentary elections in 2007 broke down. 4 On some of these developments, see Elena Kropatcheva, Ukraine after the March 2006 Parliamentary Elections: Quo Vadis? In: Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg/IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2006, Baden-Baden 2007, pp. 71-84. 5 See, for example, Alexander Sviridenko. Predlog i predlozhenie. Konstitutsionnyi sud izuchaet poryadok formirovaniya koalitsii [Pretext and Proposal. Constitutional Court Studies the Order of the Coalition Formation], in: Kommersant, 3 April 2009. 138 In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2009, Baden-Baden 2010, pp. 137-152. fore recipes for ‘chaos.’”6 While Tymoshenko is in favour of changing the constitution to establish a parliamentary system, Yushchenko hopes to strengthen presidential authority, by changing Ukraine’s current parliamentary- presidential system into a presidential one.7 According to the US Judge Bohdan Futey, Ukraine remains “in legal turmoil to this day.”8 Primarily because of the disputes between Tymoshenko, Yushchenko, and Yanukovych but also because of the haggling that went on over strategic positions in the government, some of the country’s important ministerial pos- itions have been left vacant for a while.9 After the parliament dismissed For- eign Minister Volodymyr Ohrysko, who had been nominated by the presi- dent, Ukraine had no foreign minister for more than five months (since March 2009), but only an acting foreign minister in Volodymyr Handogi. “What kind of a message do the authorities convey to the outside world? That they do not care for the foreign policy, as long as the domestic policies are completely senile?” was the question raised by Zerkalo Nedeli, a Ukrainian weekly newspaper.10 The Rada also dismissed Defence Minister Yuriy Ekhanurov, and, since June 2009, Ukraine has only had an acting defence minister in Valery Ivashchenko. In February, the Rada also dismissed the Fi- nance Minister Victor Pynzenyk. Igor Umanskiy is the acting finance minis- ter. The interior minister, Yuriy Lutsenko, also offered to resign, after a scan- dal in which he was accused of drunken behaviour at Frankfurt-am-Main air- port, but he retained this position.11 Both the EU and the US have started to voice their disappointment with the domestic political turmoil in Ukraine. For instance, the EU-Ukraine Par- liamentary Cooperation Committee (PCC) issued a statement expressing “its deep concern over the continuing political struggle in Ukraine”, stressing “that such permanent political tensions might hamper the progress of the ur- gently needed constitutional, institutional and socio-economic reforms”, and urging “the Ukrainian political leaders to overcome internal political div- isions […]”.12 During his visit to Ukraine in July 2009, US Vice President Joe Biden asked “why the government was not exhibiting the same political 6 Tymoshenko, cited in: Taras Kuzio, Constitutional Instability in Ukraine Leads to “Legal Turmoil”, RFE/RL, 26 June 2009, at: http://www.rferl.org/articleprintview/1763341.html. 7 Cf. Clifford J. Levy, Ukraine’s Political Paralysis Gives Black Eyes to Orange Revolution Heroes, in: New York Times, 23 June 2009; on concrete reform proposals, see also: Valery Kalnysh/Nikolai Filchenko, Yushchenko, Constitution and People, in: Kommersant, 25 August 2009. 8 Bohdan Futey, cited in: Kuzio, cited above (Note 6). The article also contains more infor- mation on the constitutional problems in Ukraine. 9 True at the time of writing in August 2009. 10 Tatyana Silina, Midominizatsiya [MFA-ization], Zerkalo Nedeli No. 24, 27 June-3 July 2009. 11 Ukrainischer Innenminister pöbelt am Flughafen [Ukrainian Interior Minister in Airport Brawl], in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 6 May 2009, at: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/ 960/467533/text. 12 EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, Twelfth Meeting, 24-25 February 2009, Brussels, Final Statement and Recommendations pursuant to Article 90 of the PCA, para. 11. 139 In: IFSH (ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2009, Baden-Baden 2010, pp. 137-152. maturity as the people, why communication among leaders has broken down to such an extent that political posturing appears to prevent progress”, and pointed out that “in a democracy, compromise is not a sign of weakness; it is evidence of strength.”13 International ratings, such as those produced by Freedom House, the Bertelsmann Foundation, and Transparency International, tend to show that, since the “Orange Revolution”, there has been practically no progress as far as the rule of law and the fight against corruption are concerned.14 Though Ukraine’s indicators (such as freedom and the state of democracy) are better than those of other CIS states, Ukraine remains far behind Central-Eastern European countries.15 Ninety-three per cent of the population are dissatisfied with both the political and the economic situation in their country, according to an October 2008 survey by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), and it “is the highest figure for dissatisfaction in Ukraine” of all the IFES polls conducted since 1994.16 The level of confidence in political institutions and political leaders has dropped significantly.17 At the time of writing, presidential elections are scheduled to be held on 17 January 2010 and the new parliamentary elections are to take place in 2012, but it is not possible to say whether these dates will remain or whether this will change as a result of internal political disputes and conflicts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ukraine and the EU After the Elections: More of the Same?
    Policy Brief December 2007 The King Baudouin Foundation and Compagnia di San Paolo are strategic partners of the European Policy Centre Ukraine and the EU after the elections: more of the same? By Amanda Akçakoca and Richard Whitman Background Relations between Ukraine and much-needed reforms that would, In 2004, the Orange Coalition the EU have made unspectacular in turn, allow it to put greater was a heterogeneous collection of progress since the 2004 Orange pressure on the EU to start thinking disparate groups united primarily Revolution, despite the expectations about Ukraine as a potential by opposition to former President raised by the democratic uprising in candidate for accession, albeit in Leonard Kuchma’s increasingly Kiev and the Union’s enlargement to the long term. repressive regime. It lacked a Central and Eastern Europe. common, clearly-defined political For the EU, the signing of the Lisbon agenda – a problem subsequently Since 2004, Ukraine has been Treaty and optimism about its exacerbated by President Viktor confronted with recurrent internal successful ratification should Yushchenko’s weak and unstable political turmoil and parliamentary enable it to devote more energy leadership, and Yulia Tymoshenko’s gridlock which have tarnished its and effort to policies towards its ‘populist’ approach and apparent image as a reforming country and wider neighbourhood – and towards inability to act as team player. the prospects of deepening relations Ukraine, as a key neighbour, with the enlarged Union. Meanwhile, in particular. Controversial constitutional the EU has been distracted by the reforms in early 2005, which trauma of the failure to ratify the So what are the key stumbling blocks significantly enhanced the Constitutional Treaty and the ensuing to fostering a closer relationship powers of the government at the ‘enlargement fatigue’ reinforced by between the two sides and what President’s expense, also resulted the experience of Bulgarian and can be done to speed up progress? in widespread gridlock in the Romanian accession.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine Chornobyl Chronology
    Chornobyl Chronology Last update: December 2008 This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. Nuclear Waste: 2008-1995 OVERVIEW Spent fuel is generally stored on site in cooling ponds at the nuclear power plants at which the fuel assemblies were used. Ukraine previously sent its spent fuel to Russia to be reprocessed, but this course became a contentious issue after Russia passed a law in 1992 prohibiting the import of radioactive material into Russia. This action resulted in storage crisis at Ukrainian power plants. In 6/93, however, Russia passed a new law that allows Ukrainian spent fuel to be reprocessed, but not stored, in Russia. The law does not allow the import of nuclear waste into Russia, but allows the import of Russian-origin spent fuel as long as the resulting waste is returned to the territory of the state which delivered it.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine's Party System Evolution: 1990-2017
    RAZUMKOV CENTRE UKRAINE’S PARTY SYSTEM EVOLUTION: 1990-2017 The publication is supported by the Ukrainian Office of Konrad Adenauer Foundation 2017 UKRAINE`S PARTY SYSTEM EVOLUTION: 1990-2017 / Edited by Yu.Yakymenko. – Kyiv: Razumkov Сentre, 2017. – p.62 This publication presents an abridged version of the Analytical Report by the Razumkov Centre that examines the emergence and further transformation of Ukraine’s party system in 1990-2017. We have examined key drivers of change at each evolution stage, such as legislation on political parties and elections; political regime; most significant societal cleavages, nature and consequences of their influence; analysed current trends in Ukraine’s party system development. The publication will be useful for everyone interested in post-independence nation-building processes in Ukraine, development of political parties and the party system, experience of political transformations in post-Soviet countries. © Razumkov Centre, 2017 © “Zapovit Publishing House”, 2017 UKRAINE’S PARTY SYSTEM EVOLUTION: 1990-2017 olitical parties are an important institution of a democratic society, P which ensures aggregation and articulation of the interests of various social groups. Interaction among parties in their struggle for power and the exercise of political power by them form a party system. The process of party system formation in Ukraine has been going on for more than 25 years. This publication represents a shortened version of the Razumkov Centre’s report, which examines the fundamental stages of the party system formation in 1990-2017, including intra-party processes, institutional legal and socio-political conditions for their activities and inter-party relations.1 1. STUDY METHODOLOGY The Razumkov Centre’s study uses an approach that combines elements of quantitative and qualitative approaches to the analysis of party system dynamics and takes into account changes of the three following components that define party system and/or affect it.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Post-Election Ukrainian Foreign and Energy Policies: Two Hypotheses
    1 Post-Election Ukrainian Foreign and Energy Policies: Two Hypotheses to be Investigated in Seven Areas Taras Kuzio Ukraine‟s ability to pursue European integration are prevented because of the deterioration in seven areas: manipulation of the Constitutional Court to return Ukraine to the 1996 presidential constitution, selective use of justice and imprisonment of opposition leaders, transformation of parliament into a rubber stamp institution, election fraud in the October 2010 local and October 2012 parliamentary elections, growth of corruption, censorship of the media and interference by the Security Service into civil society organisations. The pursuit of these seven factors have stalled Ukraine‟s European integration. Ukraine‟s policies can be described as virtual which are routinely laid out in legislation, presidential decrees and official statement and rhetoric but are ignored by Ukrainian leaders. Virtual policies resemble Soviet style extortions to fulfill five year plans or the extensive human and national rights laid out in Soviet constitutions that were contradicted by actual policies and outcomes and the realities of everyday life for Soviet citizens. Democratization in kraine has twice been threatened during Kuchma‟s second term in office (2000-2004) and immediately following Viktor Yanukovych‟s election in 2010. Ukraine‟s inability to implement policies and changes, including those which Kyiv signs up to with international organizations, reduces the effectiveness of the West‟s engagement with Ukraine and the ability of Kyiv to pursue its declared foreign policy objectives (see Kuzio 2011a). 2 Partnership with Ukraine under Kuchma, Yushchenko and Yanukovych has therefore been followed by Disillusionment in Kuchma‟s second term, Viktor Yushchenko‟s third year and Viktor Yanukovych‟s second year in office.
    [Show full text]
  • REGULATION of POLITICAL PARTIES in UKRAINE: the CURRENT STATE and DIRECTION of REFORMS Ce , Political Party Cial Opinion Ght Against Corruption
    THE CURRENT STATEREGULATION AND DIRECTION OF POLITICAL OF REFORMSPARTIES IN UKRAINE: Th e reform of political parties legislation and regulation can act as a platform Denys Kovryzhenko from which to consider a wide array of crucial issues in the development of a stable Agency for Legislative Initiatives and lasting democratic party system. Th ese include, inter alia, political party fi nancing, internal party democracy, the participation of women, registration and monitoring of political parties. In partnership with the OSCE’s Offi ce for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and with the fi nancial support of the European Union, REGULATION Denys Kovryzhenko and his colleagues at the Agency for Legislative Initiatives (ALI), led an in-depth consultative process with key stakeholders in Ukraine T H E C U R R E N T on the issue of political party legislation reform, raising problems and proposing possible solutions. OF POLITICAL Th e result is Regulation of Political Parties in Ukraine: the Current State and Direction of Reforms, a comprehensive report which thoroughly analyses S T A T E A N D the particular problems and issues in Ukraine’s legislative and regulatory framework for political parties. Looking forward, and based on the results ofthe consultations, the report proposes an agenda for reform based PARTIES on international and European standards and best practice. D I R E C T I O N Th e Agency for Legislative Initiatives (ALI) is one of the leading Ukrainian think tanks. ALI has a 10-year experience in implementing projects aiming I N U K R A I N E at the introduction of policy dialogue practices into the law-making process, ensuring public participation in the legislative process, monitoring ofthe activities O F R E F O R M S of the parliament, studying the principles and problems of Ukrainian parliamentarism, and conducting comparative studies on a variety of subjects, such as election legislation, political parties, and the fi ght against corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Ukraine Seriously: Western and Russian Responses to the Orange Revolution
    Taking Ukraine Seriously: Western and Russian Responses to the Orange Revolution Derek Fraser The Orange Revolution – A Staging Post on a Long Journey The Orange Revolution – that mass popular protest at the end of 2004 against vote rigging in the first two rounds of the Ukrainian presidential election – resulted in a largely fair third round of voting that brought to power the reformist coalition under President Yushchenko. The reformers made Ukraine a more democratic and, possibly, a more independent country. Much still has to be done, however, to realize fully the reformers’ goals of assuring Ukraine’s independence, achieving European standards of governance and economic freedom, and anchoring the country to Western institutions such as the WTO, the EU and NATO. This paper will examine what the reformers achieved, and what remains to be done. It will also consider Russia’s efforts to regain its influence and power in Ukraine, and the role that the West might play to support reform. The Orange Revolution was significant for several reasons. It marked a coming of age of civil society in much of Ukraine. Throughout a large part of the country, Ukrainians sloughed off their passivity toward those in authority. The uprising was the largest civic action in Europe since the Velvet Revolution ended communist rule in Czechoslovakia in 1989. One in five Ukrainians, including 48 percent of the population of Kyiv, participated in protests against the fraudulent second round of voting on 21 November 2004.1 The third round of voting on 26 December was notable for being one of the rare times in the history of the former Soviet republics that an election has been largely democratic, and not a carefully stage-managed affair.
    [Show full text]
  • West Weary of Ukraine Once Again
    Opinion » Op-Ed 20 July 2006 West weary of Ukraine once again The deepening political and constitutional crisis in Ukraine has contributed to growing Ukraine fatigue in the West The deepening political and constitutional crisis in Ukraine has contributed to growing Ukraine fatigue in the West. Unlike the Ukraine fatigue found in the Leonid Kuchma era, today’s Ukraine fatigue is of a different ‘lighter’ nature. During Kuchma’s second term as president, Ukraine fatigue rested on allegations of abuse of office, illegal arms sales and alleged involvement in the murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. Today’s Ukraine fatigue-lite is of a different nature and can be divided into genuine and disingenuous feelings. Genuine Ukraine fatigue-lite can be found inside and outside Ukraine among those who welcomed the Orange Revolution and hoped it would lead to a democratic breakthrough in Ukraine. This, in turn, would have led to Ukraine’s integration into the West, firstly into the WTO and NATO, and at a later date into the EU. Genuine Ukraine fatigue-lite is exasperated by five policy failures. First, Viktor Yushchenko has been unable to grow into the president’s shoes. Western media now openly talk of the lack of leadership in Ukraine. Since January 2005, Ukraine has not had a ‘hospodar’ (master) at home. Insiders in the president’s team say Yushchenko does not have loyal and honest advisers whom he can trust to speak to him candidly. Yushchenko does not have his own Condoleezza Rice or Dick Cheney, like U.S. President George Bush. Second, loyalty to the president has been a more important factor than competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Reacting to Uncertainty in Partial Democracies: the Role of Negative Framing in Power Struggles in Ukrainian Energy Politics, 1990S-2000S
    Reacting to uncertainty in partial democracies: the role of negative framing in power struggles in Ukrainian energy politics, 1990s-2000s. by Katerina Bosko a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science at the University of Bremen Bremen 2017 Abstract This research project is about the processes and effects of strategic public elite communication in partial democracies, and Ukraine is used as a case study. This study is situated within the field of comparative politics that investigates the internal dynamics of hybrid regimes, i.e., regimes that combine features of democracies and autocracies. Partial democracies are defined here as highly competitive and institutionally weak hybrid regimes. While many authoritarian regimes prefer either to avoid or to regulate public discussions, polarizing debates are not uncommon in partial democracies. Moreover, unlike authoritarian regimes, many partial democracies often have “islands” of media freedom. Together with partially free media, the lively public sphere is the democratic component of partial democracies in which, however, corruption is widespread and laws are often disregarded. Such a political context is highly uncertain, and the outcomes of elite interactions are unpredictable. At the same time, the majority of the population is passive and disaffected. Therefore, how do elites convey a political message in a highly uncertain environment, in which the public does not trust politicians? What are the effects of such debates on the political system? The central argument of this thesis is that the contextual uncertainty inherent in partial democracies produces incentives for political actors to rely on negative framing as a strategy in power struggles, which, in effect, reproduces contextual uncertainty.
    [Show full text]
  • Gas Lobby Takes Control of Ukraine's Security Service
    Gas Lobby Takes Control of Ukraine’s Security Service Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 7 Issue: 53 March 18, 2010 05:55 PM Age: 11 hrs By: Taras Kuzio newly-appointed Security Service (SBU) Chairman Valery Khoroshkovsky On March 11, the Ukrainian parliament appointed Prime Minister, Nikolai Azarov, and a new Security Service (SBU) Chairman, Valery Khoroshkovsky. As Ukrayinska Pravda (February 24) warned: “An additional bonus for the Liovochkin-Firtash group could be the appointment of Khoroshkovsky as the head of the SBU or interior minister, for which they are actively lobbying.” The Head of the Presidential Administration, Serhiy Liovochkin, has close ties to the gas lobby, formed while he served as a senior adviser to President Leonid Kuchma. Another representative, Yuriy Boyko, was appointed Minister of Fuel and Energy in the Azarov government. An extensive Ukrayinska Pravda investigation (July 30, 2008) was entitled “Khoroshkovsky as a mask for Firtash?” Dmytro Firtash owns 45 percent of the opaque gas intermediary RosUkrEnergo (RUE), with 5 percent owned by another Ukrainian, Ivan Fursin, and 50 percent by Gazprom. RUE was established in 2004 by Kuchma and the then Russian President Vladimir Putin. RUE was removed from the Ukrainian-Russian gas trade by the 2009 gas contract signed between Prime Ministers Yulia Tymoshenko and Putin. From 2004 to 2008, RUE had the support of not only the gas lobby in the Party of Regions, but also President Viktor Yushchenko whose brother, Our Ukraine deputy, Petro, is a gas trader. Yushchenko intervened in the summer of 2005 to halt the arrest of Boyko for abuse of office when he headed Naftohaz.
    [Show full text]
  • English%20FINAL.Pdf
    ALMANAC ON SECURITY SECTOR GOVERNANCE IN UKRAINE 2012 Geneva-Kyiv, 2013 Editors: Joseph L. DERDZINSKI, Valeriya KLYMENKO Design and layout: Oleksandr SHAPTALA This volume offers a selection of articles by the Ukrainian and international authors. They present different points of view and assessments of the current state and perspectives of the Ukrainian Security Sector development including its defence, internal security and defence industry. The analysis also covers broader issues of national domestic and foreign policy directly infl uencing security of the Ukrainian citizens, society and the state. Such an approach helps better appreciate ongoing developments in the Security Sector and the essence of problems related to national security. General assessments, conclusions and proposals are those of the authors and do not necessarily coincide with the positions of DCAF or the Razumkov Centre. Publication was made possible in the framework of NATO-Ukraine Partnership Network and thanks to the fi nancial support of the Swiss Ministry of Defence Partnership for Peace programme © DCAF, 2013 © Razumkov Centre, 2013 ISBN 978-966-7272-93-7 © “Zapovit” Publishing House, 2013 А Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS . .7 FOREWORD Philipp FLURI . .9 SECURITY SECTOR Chapter 1. SECURITY SECTOR IN THE CONTEXT OF GENERAL SOCIO-POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF UKRAINE Oleksiy MELNYK, Mykola SUNGUROVSKYI . .13 Chapter 2. UKRAINE’S SECURITY SECTOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: A MODERNISED SOVIET MODEL Oleksandr LYTVYNENKO . .29 Chapter 3. UKRAINE’S SECURITY: PROGRESS AND REGRESSION James SHERR . .37 DEFENCE SECTOR Chapter 4. NEW MILITARY DOCTRINE: PRINCIPLES OF UKRAINE’S MILITARY POLICY IN THE CONDITIONS OF A NON-BLOC STATUS Volodymyr MOZHAROVSKYI, Oleksandr ZATYNAIKO, Viktor PAVLENKO, Viktor BOCHARNIKOV, and Serhiy SVESHNIKOV .
    [Show full text]
  • Yushchenko Versus Tymoshenko: Why Ukraine's National Democrats Are Divided
    YUSHCHENKO VERSUS TYMOSHENKO: WHY UKRAINE’S NATIONAL DEMOCRATS ARE DIVIDED TARAS KUZIO JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY-SAIS Abstract: Ukraine’s national democrats are divided into pragmatic and ideologically-driven wings resting on their support for different policies towards national communists in the early 1990s and transition winners (i.e. oligarchs) from the late 1990s. Pragmatic national democrats, led by Viktor Yushchenko, supported grand coalitions between Our Ukraine and centrist members of the establishment, such as the Party of Regions, gave lukewarm support to anti-presidential movements in the run up to the Orange Revolution, and preferred round- tables to street protests. Ideologically-driven national democrats, led by Yuliya Tymoshenko, opposed grand coalitions, were at the center of anti-regime movements during the Orange Revolution, and opposed round-table talks with the authorities. his article provides the first analysis of the long-term conflict between Tthe two key national democratic leaders, Viktor Yushchenko and Yuliya Tymoshenko, which was one of the factors that dominated Yushchenko’s presidency. This conflict is of fundamental importance to Ukrainian poli- tics because it defined the evolution of post-Orange Revolution politics and led to the election of Viktor Yanukovych as president in 2010. This article analyzes the relationship between the national demo- crats and the Ukrainian establishment, particularly focusing on how the national democrats related to Ukraine’s sovereign (national) communists in the early 1990s and the small group of winners who became super- wealthy oligarchs in Ukraine’s partial transition. Differences in defining Taras Kuzio is a Non-Resident Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins University-SAIS ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Viktor Yushchenko's Reforms, 2000
    ch05_15124_Peterson_Ukraine:ch05_15124_Peterson_Ukraine 8/28/09 5:51 PM Page 125 5 Viktor Yushchenko’s Reforms, 2000 At the end of 1999, Ukraine looked miserable.1 It was the only postcommu- nist country that had failed to achieve a single year of economic growth for a whole decade. With a registered cumulative decline of 61 percent of GDP from 1989 to 1999, it had suffered the greatest official slump of all postcom- munist countries that had not been involved in war. Russia had suffered a comparatively moderate decline of 41 percent during the same period be- cause of more far-reaching reforms. By contrast, Poland, the ambitious re- former, had recorded a growth of 22 percent (figure 5.1). These large slumps should not be taken at face value. Considering the growth of the unregistered economy, the actual decline might have been only half of that recorded (Johnson, Kaufmann, and Shleifer 1997). The poor survived on moneyless subsistence agriculture on their small house- hold plots, as neither pensions nor wages were paid on time or in full. The titles of Oleh Havrylyshyn’s analysis of the Ukrainian economy at the time are characteristic: “The Political Economy of Delayed Reform” (2000) and “What Makes Ukraine Not Grow?” (2003). Shockingly, by 2000 Ukraine’s GDP per capita at current exchange rates was one-third of Rus- sia’s, although it had exceeded moderately reforming Russia’s in 1990, and that was before the oil boom. Even worse, it was as little as one-seventh of radically reforming Poland’s GDP per capita at current exchange rates, al- though the World Bank had ranked Ukraine as richer than Poland before the end of communism.2 Naturally, this also reflects Ukraine’s deflated 1.
    [Show full text]