Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

h1

The inevitable Tomos

October 1, 2018

Autocephaly and Tomos of the Ukrainian Orthodox Kyiv Patriarchate, which first appeared to be becoming a reality in April 2018, will assuredly occur before the year end.

A matter worthy of note for a blog that (willingly or otherwise) continues to be pulled toward matters of organised crime and national security (occasionally not withstanding “defence” more broadly).

As such the autocephaly of the Kyiv Patriarchate and church-wide recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate as an independent and equal entity to that of the long-perceived subordinating Moscow Patriarchate is in a broad sense a matter of national security.  This not only as it will reduce Moscow meddling within the bureaucracy and hierarchy within the Kyiv Patriarchate (despite a number of its current subversive clergy within the Kyiv church), but also as a solid block within the foundation of nation building.

There will no doubt be media interest from just which patriarchate any potential/current parliamentarian will wheel out and be photographed with during the next Verkhovna Rada election period from summer to October 2019.

For some, such as Vadim Novinsky, Sergei Kivalov and Nikolai Skorik, clearly the choice is already made.  Certainly Messrs Novinsky and Kivalov have a decades long and very public association with the Moscow Patriarchate.

For others like Mr Skorik, he will follow the Oppo Block party line – or for as long as his ultimate master Dmitry Firtash desires such an association.

If proof were required, the 29th September visit to Odessa of the head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Onufry provided it.

Naturally also present were Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria and Metropolitan of Odessa and Izmail Agafangel.  Agafangel for 30 years has been a stalwart backer of Moscow and The Kremlin, and became particularly prominent due to a natural and undoubtedly prolonged shift in societal view away from Moscow since 2014.

Indeed, Agafangel has oft been accused (perhaps not inaccurately) of being far more than the shepherd of soviet and post-Soviet Kremlin leaning souls in the southwest of Odessa.  Occasionally he has been accused of being far more than a passionate useful Kremlin idiot, or even an agent provocateur too.

Of course Tomos and autocephaly will be robustly resisted by those aforementioned, despite its inevitability prior to the year end.

A reader may perhaps keep a watchful eye upon the permission to build Kyiv Patriarchate places of worship in deepest and darkest south-western Odessa – or not, when permission is not forthcoming, or forever stuck in local authority bureaucracy.

No doubt a rather defiant but pointless stand when, as the years and decades ahead pass and the Kyiv Patriarchate will come to dominate (if not completely replace) the Moscow Patriarchate.

It will thus be interesting to witness which Patriarchate the parliamentary and local political class wheel out for their election/re-election campaigns and festive season messages of goodwill and hope that will infect the local television broadcasts a few months hence.

Advertisements
h1

Gaidar becomes Presidential Adviser – Why, and why now?

April 5, 2017

As unusual as it is to read anything so clearly favorable about a Ukrainian politician on this blog, or to write about a politician rather than policy per se, the following prose will be something of an exception.

Maria Gaidar has featured in the blog several times having arrived in Ukraine, being granted Ukrainian citizenship (and relinquishing her Russian citizenship), and subsequently acting as Deputy Head of Odessa Oblast Administration under Governor Misha Saakashvili.

She is perhaps the closest thing Ukraine currently has to political aristocracy, albeit her political aristocracy is rooted in Russia via her late father Yegor Gaidar (Prime Minister of the Russian Federation 15 June – 14 December 1992) and Great Grandfather Arkady Gaidar.

Nevertheless there are few, if any current Ukrainian politicians that can claim 4 generations of political lineage that have all featured at the pinnacle of national policy shaping.

(She also worked with an old friend of this blog, the late Boris Nemtsov.)

All of that said, to be fair, it is all somewhat irrelevant even if interesting.

What matters is what, if anything, Ms Gaidar not only accomplished, but how she went about it, as a Ukrainian politician in Odessa since her adoption of Ukraine (or perhaps vice versa).

Having met her several times, she is undoubtedly one of the best mannered, humble, accessible and intelligent women in Ukrainian politics – and certainly to grace the political and policy stage of Odessa.

She is clearly more than capable of acting upon a stage far greater than Odessa Oblast and yet decided to remain as a local Deputy in the Oblast Rada when the rest of “Team Saakashvili” moved on/was eased out/quit and headed to Kyiv, thus honouring her public mandate.

She has remained a solid, reliable, conscientious, almost media invisible Oblast Deputy who has, so far as can be ascertained, avoided the usual trips and traps of local governance corruption.

She also did a decent job, where it was possible, at clearing up the unintended mess left behind by Hurricane Saakashvili as he whirled around the Oblast when she was his Deputy (while allowing the intended devastation to do what it was intended to do) .

It follows therefore that the blog has no issue with the surprise appointment of Maria Gaidar as Presidential Adviser.   She is certainly brighter and far less tainted than many within the Presidential Administration.

Two questions however – Why, and why now?

Is Ms Gaidar deemed a “Saakashvili legacy” by the new Governor of Odessa, akin to an unwanted fly in his soup – and thus this appointment giving opportunity to have her officially out of Odessa often, despite her local public mandate?

Is it nothing more than a cheap. non point scoring poke at The Kremlin?

Is it a poke at Misha Saakashvili?

Is it an attempt by the Presidential Administration to lure some former “Team Saakashvili” people across?  (Albeit Ms Gaidar was clearly different in her approach to her work than the majority of that team – publicly at least.)

Cynicism asks whether Kyiv simply bereft of smart people to advice the President?

Are there other reasons, be they less than obvious or distinctly motivated by events behind the curtain, for this appointment?

And why now?

For almost a year Ms Gaidar has been, by choice, a lowly Oblast Deputy having resigned as former Governor Saakashvili’s Deputy when the Law on Civil Service came into force in May 2016.  She has been left to fester in Odessa in a political position far below her abilities, so what has now changed to warrant her appointment as a Presidential Adviser (along side her local mandate)?

Is this a reward for perceived loyalty to the President and/or people of Odessa because she did not abandon her responsibilities in Odessa and follow Misha Saakashvili?

It has to be said the appointment is a surprise, and although she is more than equal to the role, the questions of why, and why now, thus far provides for few convincing answers.  Nevertheless President Poroshenko has made this appointment for a reason and that may become clearer only later.

h1

What is past is prologue (Shakespeare)

January 16, 2017

With Vice President Biden bidding adieu in Kyiv having been point man for the out going US Administration, naturally official statements are a mixture of thanks and platitudes for efforts past and also words of hope for the future.

Yet the words used by both President Poroshenko and Vice President Biden at their farewell meeting are hardly the most robust and unambiguous when it comes to confirming continued US policy toward Ukraine.

“We really count on the succession by the new U.S. administration in our common work” and “hope that the Ukrainian issue will further unite the entire American political spectrum and remain among the top priorities” the oratory of President Poroshenko is hardly that of a political leader confident in the future policy of an ally.

Further, despite President Poroshenko’s “hope” it is already fact that the Ukrainian issue will not unite the entire American political spectrum insofar as where Ukrainian issues overlap with Russian issues.  The reverse is abundantly clear.  Divisions are widening within the US political arena where Ukrainian and Russian policy overlaps.

In response, VP Biden stating “I hope that the next administration will also want to be a supporter and partner in your continued progress” does little to convey anything solid either.

Yet more “hope“.

Perhaps one more forlorn “hope” is that the in-coming administration even has a Ukraine policy around which the American political spectrum can either diverge or unite – particularly when it comes to overlapping Russia issues.

What is past is prologue (Shakespeare)

Thus what has gone before may have little to offer by way of predicting, and therefore understanding, what is to come.  It may be that there is, as yet, no policy regarding Ukraine as far as the in-coming Administration is concerned, and thus policy drift and/or meandering is what awaits to be exploited by those that seize the moment.

“Hope” no matter how many times it appears in presidential prose is not a strategy.  And it is certainly not a strategy Ukraine will be wise to employ with regard the emissions of the new US Administration.

If “hope” is to play any part in Ukrainian strategy, it is perhaps better replaced with “optimism” and employed within a domestic political and policy context.  “The essence of optimism is that it takes no account of the present, but it is a source of inspiration, or vitality and hope where others have resigned; it enables a man to hold his head high, to claim the future for himself and not abandon it to his enemy.” (Bonhoeffer).

It may be prudent therefore to deliver some swift, sensible, domestic inspiration by way of policy!

h1

Odessa gets a NABU Chief (not without history)

January 13, 2017

Odessa has eventually been appointed a regional NABU Chief.

In fact the “Odessa” NABU region covers Odessa, Kherson, Mykolayiv and Kirovograd.  A geographical area larger than some European countries and given the number of NABU mandated public officials within, no small number of fish to shoot at in the regional barrel.

The appointee, following what was probably not a competition but rather a “competition” is Dmitry Rudenko, 15 years in law enforcement in Vinnitsa and holder of 2 law degrees and a further degree in accounting and auditing.

Prima facie a fairly good mixture of education and experience for his future role.

Of course the cynical reader cannot help but note he hails from the same city as Prime Minister Groisman, and Petro Poroshenko’s political stronghold.  One of those “coincidences” that so often occur – no differently than being able to pick the “winner” from “competitions” in sensitive appointments relating to power and regional control almost every time.

Mr Rudenko however does not come without his own skeletons – the largest of which relates to the late, well known human rights activist from Vinnitsa, Dmitry Groisman.

Mr Groisman died a week before a court in Vinnitsa acquitted him of prosecutor nonsense.  Criminal proceedings were opened into those that brought the case which it was stated in court, was fabricated.  Mr Rudenko was one of those against criminal proceedings were opened (and then, it would appear, quietly closed).

Mr Rudenko should of course be wished happy and successful hunting.  There are many fish in his barrel to be easily shot, and some that will require a little more skill.  The cynical reader will also ponder whether some will require tacit political approval or deniable political targeting.

Time will tell whether those close to the leading BPP political lights will suffer NABU attention in Odessa as swiftly or as thoroughly as those that are not.  The perception in Odessa however, will be that Mr Rudenko is already sullied.

(Quite a week for Odessa now President Poroshenko has officially appointed Ihor Kolomoisky’s man Maxim Stepanov as Governor.)

h1

Ukraine begins to lobby DC – professionally

January 7, 2017

Many times it has been written that Ukraine would be wise to lobby Washington DC beyond the abilities of its own diplomatic mission and occasional delegations.

So it comes to pass, and probably due to a Trump presidency almost being upon Ukraine, the national leadership has decided to engage professional lobbyists to champion Ukraine inside “The Beltway”.

That said, whilst Ukraine as a State has taken its time to arrive at this decision, many of the Ukrainian elite have long since lobbied their own causes/interests within DC.

personal-lobbying

Ms Tymoshenko outspends all others (despite her meager income according to her e-declaration.)

The Ukrainian State has chosen to spend a seemingly meager sum of $50,000 per month having BGR Group strengthen ties between the USA and Ukraine, and further encourage US investment and/or US investors to look at Ukraine.

bgr

Not before time, and perhaps only because of who the next US president will be, has Ukraine as a State started to spend money where many of its nefarious elites have done so for years.

1

2

3

The contract would seem to last for the duration of 2017.

Although this is definitely the right policy for the Ukrainian State to engage in – indeed to belatedly engage in – a reader may ponder just what returns can be expected for $600,000 per annum when considering that Ms Tymoshenko spent more than that amount in 2014, that same amount in 2015, and would appear to have very little to show for it – unless her lobbying was intended to insure very little was publicly shown regarding her.

So, what do you get for $600,000 of lobbying inside “The Beltway” (even if leveraged with a cooperative Ukrainian Ambassador and embassy)?  BGR Group and 2017 will provide the answers!

h1

Moldavian meetings

January 5, 2017

For the first time since 2008, a President of Moldova, Igor Dodon met with a “President of Transnistria” Vadim Krasnoselsky.

Whether it proves to be anything more than a symbolic gesture by pro-Kremlin Moldavian President Dodon remains to be seen, for his powers as president are extremely limited (which is perhaps a good thing being a robust supporter of federalising Moldova).

Moldova is a parliamentary democracy with the President having very little sway over policy or legislation.  (As such the Moldavian parliamentary elections of 2018 matter far more than the recent election of Mr Dodon as President of Moldova.)

What was known to be discussed appears to have been all rather sensible – and occurred outside of the longstanding 5+2 format which may or may not further frustrate an already frustrated process.  Nevertheless issues such as agriculture in the Dubasari district, education and diplomas, and the movement of citizens across the Dniester river were discussed.

It is said they will meet again soon with proposal to solving the issues discussed and to set timelines to implement agreed solutions.

Time, as it always does, will tell when it comes to results, particularly as President Dodon would have to have the Moldavian parliament “on side” to actually deliver much (if anything).

With regards to meetings, and perhaps worthy of note for those in Kyiv, on 26th December, 3 days after Mr Dodon’s election as president, the odious and criminal Mykola Skoryk MP (Oppo Block) quietly visited Moldova attending a Party of Socialists event to celebrate Mr Dodon’s success.

psrm

President Dodon had been a long serving Chairman of the Party of Socialists after leaving the Communist Party.  Needless to say the Party of Socialists is a robustly Russophile political entity.

That the obnoxious Mykola Skoryk would surround himself with russophiles is in keeping with his personal views (as inferred in the above link).  As regular readers will note however, it is not his russophile views that make Mykola Skoryk obnoxious.  Quite simply there is nothing about his political history, business activities, or egocentric personality that make him likable – russophile or not.

Time will tell whether Prosecutor General Lutsenko will actually get around to trying to strip Mykola Skoryk of his parliamentary immunity and prosecute him as he stated he would in September – but as yet hasn’t.  Perhaps he has forgotten, perhaps he opened his mouth before gathering sufficient evidence, or perhaps a grubby deal has been struck that he won’t now go after Mr Skoryk.  Neither Messrs Lutsenko or Skoryk have been adverse to grubby (and criminal) little deals throughout their political careers.

The question however is what was Mykola Skoryk doing at a Party of Socialists gathering for, and with, the newly invested President Dodon?  A shared russophilia is unlikely to be the answer in and of itself.  There will be more to it.

Perhaps it is a matter of insuring any cross-border “business” is not interrupted under a new presidency.  Perhaps there are now opportunities to expand “business”.  Maybe an arrangement made for an immediate “bolt hole” from Odessa should Prosecutor General Lutsenko actually put action where his rhetoric already exists.  Per chance some plotting and scheming regarding stirring up matters in “Bessarabia” occurred – as one domestic result of a Trump victory in the USA will probably be an emboldened pro-Russian political voice within Ukraine from those that have generally kept a low profile over the past 2 years – those like Mykola Skoryk.

Whatever the case, Mykola Skoryk did not become the first Ukrainian MP to personally congratulate Mr Dodon on his election simply because of a shared russophilia and as Odessa shares a border with Moldova he thought he’d “drop by”.  He is hardly otherwise a regular face at the Party of Socialists gatherings.

That Mr Skoryk has said very little about his trip probably means that more questions should be asked.

h1

Ukrainian MIC to produce the M4 WAC47

January 3, 2017

Although it is perhaps not secret despite being secret, for quite some time the US has been toying with the idea of (limited) tech transfer to Ukraine with regard to matters MIC (Military Industrial Complex).

Issues that have prevented such (limited) transfers are not Ukrainian ability to produce weaponry from the transferred tech, nor those of any licencing limitations,  but its ability to prevent any tech transfer immediately being leaked to Russia.  Kremlin infiltration withing all institutions in Ukraine remains despite sweeps to remove the most obvious traitors from all institutions.

As is almost always the case, the most obvious infiltrators are not the most damaging.  Low hanging fruit etc.

Hence the tech transfer for the much mentioned Javelin (and other) weaponry providing Ukraine with the ability to manufacture its own remains in purgatory.

No surprises at the desire to assist Ukraine to arm itself vis a vis the obvious problems of a compromised and thoroughly infiltrated institutional structure with the latter prudently holding in abeyance the former.

Infiltration of Ukrainian institutions and structure is a problem that is not going to go away, but it is a problem that can be far better managed with a lot of work over the coming years.

However, there are MIC tech transfers and licencing that can occur whereby there are no or manageable classified issues to consider – thus predominantly only commercial issues are to be solved.

m4

It has come to pass that Ukrboronservis, part of the State Ukrboronprom monolith, is about to commence the manufacture of the M16 (or more accurately the M4 Carbine WAC47) in Ukraine in partnership with the US company Areoscraft.  The aim of this project is to equip the Ukrainian army with NATO standard weaponry produced in Ukraine by Ukraine and for Ukraine.

Messrs Vladimir Korobov (Ukrboronprom), Sergei Mykytyuk (Ukrboronservis) and Igor Pasternak (Areoscraft) made the very clear inference that the M4 WAC47 was the first weapon for this pilot project and cooperative agreement.  Ergo by inference there will be others, similarly of NATO standard.

The question is whether what follows this first project involves a tech transfer far more sensitive than how to manufacture, and licence the manufacture of, a M4 Carbine.  In short, how quickly and thoroughly can Ukraine reduce the amount of institutional and MIC Kremlin infiltration to a level that the US is prepared to transfer the tech and licencing for the manufacturing of weaponry more advanced than an M4 Carbine?

It appears the M4 WAC47 is set to become a Ukrainian produced standard piece of equipment for the Ukrainian military with the unambiguous intent of making its armed forces and its equipment interoperable with those of NATO.  A welcome step along an obvious MIC pathway – as stated in a less than flattering entry from February 2015.

%d bloggers like this: