"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"
An International Newsletter
In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis, and Commentary

"The Art of Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World"

"THE GIFT OF THE WISE MAN"
George F. Kennan's Clear-Eyed Worldview

"Kennan's containment was not a military endeavor. In lectures at the
National War College, he spoke not of 'counterforce' but 'counterpressure.'
Containment's primary instruments, as Kennan saw them, were political and
economic. As early as 1948, he took vehement exception to the creation of
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, predicting that it would
cement the division of Europe into opposing military blocs. [article one]

"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" - Number 443
morganw@patriot.net, ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net
Washington, D.C. and Kyiv, Ukraine, SUNDAY, March 20, 2005

-----INDEX OF ARTICLES-----
"Major International News Headlines and Articles"

1. "THE GIFT OF THE WISE MAN:
GEORGE F. KENNAN'S CLEAR-EYED WORLDVIEW"
'Appreciation' By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post, Washington, D. C.
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page C01

2. INTERIOR MINISTRY HAS NO PROOF THAT MEDVEDCHUK
AND KIVALOV WERE INVOLVED IN FALSIFICATION OF
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Ukrainian News Agency, UK, in English, Friday, March 18, 2005

3. YUSHCHENKO NAMES KORNIENKO AS FIRST DEPUTY
CULTURE MINISTER, KOSTENKO AS DEPUTY MINISTER
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, March 18, 2005

4. MOSCOW SLAMS MOLDOVA'S EQUALIZING ALL
WWII PARTICIPANTS
Interfax, Moscow, Russia, Sat, March 19 2005

5. EYE ON EURASIA: RUSSIAN RESENTMENT OVER WWII
By Paul Goble, United Press International (UPI)
Tartu, Estonia, Friday, March 18, 2005

6. YUSHCHENKO AND KANTOR FROM EUROPEAN JEWISH
CONGRESS DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE HOSTING
WORLD HOLOCAUST FORUM IN 2007
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, March 18, 2005

7. MINISTER SAYS UKRAINE HAS PRO-EUROPE STANCE
ON HUMAN RIGHTS
ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 18 Mar 05
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, March 18, 2005

8. UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER CHARMS WASHINGTON
By Taras Kuzio, Eurasian Daily Monitor
Volume 2, Issue 52, The Jamestown Foundation
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, March 16, 2005

9. UKRAINIAN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENTS STATE UNDERSTANDING
AT NEWS CONFERENCE
TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1650 gmt 19 Mar 05
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, March 19, 2005

10. PUTIN MAKES TRICKY FORAY TO UKRAINE
By Ron Popeski, Reuters, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sat, Mar 19, 2005

10. UKRAINIAN TV: A VIEW FROM INSIDE OR OUT?
Kyiv Weekly, #10 (150), Kyiv, Ukraine, March 18 - 25, 2005

11. UKRAINE: RUSSIA'S YOUNGER BROTHER?
By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D., Global Politician Website
Independent Journal of Politics, Economics and World Affairs
Monday, March 14, 2005

12. TARAS THE BARD...IMMORTALIZED IN A MONUMENT
By Stanislav Tsalyk, The Kyiv Weekly, Issue #8 (148)
Kyiv, Ukraine, March 4-11, 2005
===============================================================
1. "THE GIFT OF THE WISE MAN:
GEORGE F. KENNAN'S CLEAR-EYED WORLDVIEW"

'Appreciation' By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post, Washington, D. C.
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page C01

The first time I set out to find George F. Kennan, in 1982, I had just
turned 21, begun my final semester at Princeton University and noticed
with astonishment that the senior thesis deadline had crept to within four
months. It occurred to me that Kennan might make a worthy subject, and
that the thing to do was go and tell him so. That had occurred to others, I
found. At last count, the university archives hold 13 undergraduate theses
with Kennan's name in the title.

Kennan, who died Thursday, declined the honor, and two years passed
before we met. He had a pitiless rule against speaking to undergraduates. A
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and perhaps the best-known diplomat of his
times, he had made the Institute for Advanced Study, a mile from campus, his
home in exile from a government that had its fill of him decades before. He
saw himself, at 79, as a man with his most urgent work before him and all
too little time.

Early in 1984, I sent Kennan the manuscript of a book I wrote, based largely
on 38 boxes of his papers stored at Princeton's Seeley G. Mudd Library.
(Another six boxes, more personal, were restricted until after his death.)
Could he possibly look the book over, if only for errors? Some weeks later
an envelope arrived, addressed in an elegant script gone wobbly with age.

"Compelled by weariness to lie down for a time," Kennan had taken a
grudging break from work and picked up my manuscript. Though he was
flattering enough, he admitted that there were passages to which he was
tempted to reply. He did not. It was not proper, he said, to seek influence
over the book.

That self-restraint should not be confused with lack of self-regard. World
events, Kennan believed, had taken two disastrous turns, military and
environmental. Kennan was sure he understood the truth and was tormented
by failure to explain things clearly enough for others. John Lewis Gaddis,
Kennan's authorized biographer and the only person yet to read his private
diaries, said yesterday that they remind him of John Quincy Adams --
"lacerating himself" for "not living up to the standards that a very tough
and demanding God might expect."

Not long after his letter arrived, Kennan invited me to the first of several
lunches. He presented himself, rather ruefully, as an anachronism. Tall,
blue-eyed and gravely dignified, with Wisconsin Presbyterian roots, he
described himself as a guest of his times, a better fit for the 18th century
than the 20th. He was nonetheless absorbed in -- oppressed by --
contemporary affairs.

Ever the outsider, even at the peak of his influence, Kennan had sunk into
gloom. Modern industrial society, in thrall to the pernicious automobile,
was poisoning the air and water in ways that might already defy repair.
President Ronald Reagan, stepping up confrontation with the Soviet Union,
was taking what Kennan saw as reckless risks in deploying new nuclear
weapons to Western Europe.

What maddened Kennan was that Reagan, like his forebears since Harry S.
Truman, prosecuted the Cold War in the name of Kennan's own seminal
doctrine, "containment." In his "Long Telegram" of 1946 from Moscow,
reprised in the pseudonymous "X article" in Foreign Affairs the following
year, Kennan answered frustrated superiors who demanded to know why
the Soviet Union -- so recently an ally -- was proving intractable after
Hitler's defeat.

He transformed the prevailing view of the communist government, describing
it as implacably hostile, ambitious to expand, and yet fraught with internal
contradictions that would lead to "the break-up or the gradual mellowing of
Soviet power." America's task, he wrote, was to buy time for that collapse,
confronting the Soviets "with unalterable counterforce at every point where
they show signs of encroaching upon the interest of a peaceful and stable
world."

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Kennan came "as close to
authoring the diplomatic doctrine of his era as any diplomat in our
history." After reading through Kennan's papers, and speaking to him at
length, I became convinced that Kissinger was no more than half right.
Kennan also had the misfortune to be credited with a doctrine he did not
recognize or approve.

Kennan's containment was not a military endeavor. In lectures at the
National War College, he spoke not of "counterforce" but "counterpressure."
Containment's primary instruments, as Kennan saw them, were political and
economic. As early as 1948, he took vehement exception to the creation of
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, predicting that it would
cement the division of Europe into opposing military blocs.

He bitterly opposed development of the hydrogen bomb, which multiplied the
destructive power of atomic weaponry. And he despised the Truman Doctrine,
which called for military support to governments threatened by communist
insurrection, liberally defined, anywhere in the world. Later he became an
early critic of the Vietnam War, called for abolition of nuclear weapons and
disparaged President Bush's war in Iraq.

By 1950, Kennan's successor as chief of policy planning in the State
Department, Paul Nitze, had redefined containment -- in a classified report
known as NSC 68 -- as a major military buildup against a Soviet military
threat. Thus it remained, with ups and downs, until Mikhail Gorbachev
dissolved the Soviet Union. Kennan's prediction had come true, but he took
scant pleasure in the means.

When I heard the news of Kennan's death, I reread one of his most striking
metaphors.

"I sometimes wonder whether . . . democracy is not uncomfortably similar to
one of those prehistoric monsters with a body as long as this room and a
brain the size of a pin," he wrote. " . . . He is slow to wrath -- in fact,
you practically have to whack his tail off to make him aware that his
interests are being disturbed; but, once he grasps this, he lays about him
with such blind determination that he not only destroys his adversary but
largely wrecks his native habitat."

Kennan was describing the roots of World War I. It occurred to me yesterday
that Kennan's sardonic metaphor might have struck him anew in the "war on
terror" he departed in progress at the age of 101.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTO: Kennan in his Princeton office. In lectures he described containment
as a policy not of "counterforce" but "counterpressure." (Helayne Seidman
For The Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48624-2005Mar18.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTE: I first met George F. Kennan's daughter, Grace Kennan
Warnecke, when we both worked in Kyiv, Ukraine, a few years ago.
Grace was the top manager of a women in business empowerment
program implemented in Ukraine by the Winrock Foundation with funding
by USAID. Grace ran an outstanding program and also fell in love with
Ukraine, her people, her culture and her art. Grace has a wonderful
collection of Ukrainian art that has been on exhibit at The Ukrainian
Institute in NYC.

Grace left Ukraine to go back to NYC so she could care for her aging
mother and father. Grace returned to Ukraine last fall as an international
election observer with the International Republican Institute (IRI) for
round one and again for the re-run of round two. I served as an
international election observer under the same IRI program for
all three of the elections. I encouraged Grace to be in Kyiv for the
January 23rd inauguration of Viktor Yushchenko and she really
wanted so badly to come but needed to stay at home because of
her dad's failing health.

Grace has been a great friend of Ukraine and her work there made
its own contribution to many of the people involved in the Orange
Revolution. Our love and support are with Grace and her family in
this time of sadness but also in this time of celebration for the life
of her father, George F. Kennan. [Morgan Williams, Editor]
===============================================================
2. INTERIOR MINISTRY HAS NO PROOF THAT MEDVEDCHUK
AND KIVALOV WERE INVOLVED IN FALSIFICATION OF
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Ukrainian News Agency, UK, in English, Friday, March 18, 2005

KYIV - The Interior Affairs Ministry has no proof that the former head of
the Ukrainian Presidential Administration, Viktor Medvedchuk, and the former
head of the Central Electoral Commission, Serhii Kivalov, were involved in
the falsification of the results of the 2004 presidential elections.
Interior Affairs Minister Yurii Lutsenko disclosed this to Ukrainian News.

"These surnames presently do not figure from the viewpoint of evidence,"
he said. According to him, the ministry has filed over 300 cases alleging
falsification of the presidential elections.

Lutsenko did not rule out the possibility of investigation of the cases that
have already been filed revealing the involvement of Medvedchuk and Kivalov
in the falsification of the presidential elections. "They may appear at any
time in the case that is under investigation," he said.

He declined to comment on the interrogation of Medvedchuk and Kivalov by
the Prosecutor-General's Office, stressing that this is a matter for the PGO
and not the Interior Affairs Ministry.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, the PGO interrogated Parliament Speaker
Volodymyr Lytvyn, the Security Service of Ukraine's former Chairman Leonid
Derkach, Medvedchuk, Kivalov, and the former deputy head of the Ukrainian
Presidential Administration Yurii Zahorodnii on March 16 as witnesses.

The press service of the PGO declined to specify the cases in connection
with which these people were interrogated as witnesses. The Supreme Court
invalidated the results of the November 21, 2004, second round of the
presidential elections in early December and ordered its repeat on December
26.

The parliament also expressed no confidence in the CEC headed by Kivalov
and decided to change the composition of the CEC. During the presidential
election campaign, the head of then-presidential candidate Viktor
Yuschenko's office, Oleh Rybachuk, made public a tape of conversations
recorded by the Security Service of Ukraine that allegedly demonstrated the
involvement of Medvedchuk and Kivalov in the falsification of the
presidential elections. -30- [Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
===============================================================
3. PRESIDENT YUSHCHENKO NAMES KORNIENKO AS FIRST DEPUTY
CULTURE MINISTER, KOSTENKO AS DEPUTY MINISTER

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Friday, March 18, 2005

KYIV - President Viktor Yuschenko has appointed Vladyslav Kornienko to
the post of first deputy minister of culture and arts, and Olha Kostenko to
the post of deputy minister. Yuschenko's press service reported this with
reference to the President's decrees.

From October 2004, Kostenko, 41, headed the state service for control over
the transfer of cultural values across the state border of Ukraine.
From March 2003 to October 2004, he was deputy head of the department
for scientific, technical and humanitarian development of the Cabinet of
Ministers Secretariat's department for coordination of social, humanitarian
and regional policy.

From January to August 2001 he was deputy minister of culture and arts, and
from August 2001 to February 2003 he was deputy state secretary of the
Culture and Arts Ministry. As Ukrainian News reported, on February 4, while
forming the new Cabinet of Ministers, Yuschenko appointed Verkhovna Rada
(Parliament) Deputy Oksana Bilozir (Our Ukraine coalition faction) to the
post of Culture and Arts Minister.

In March she declared the intention of the Culture Ministry to set up a new
department for international cooperation and diaspora, which would be headed
by Olha Kostenko, who now works at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe, and who will also take the seat of a deputy minister of culture.

In March, Yuschenko relieved Oleksandr Muzychenko and Tymofii Kokhan of
duties as deputy ministers of culture and arts, and appointed Olha
Shokalo-Bench to the post of deputy culture and arts minister. In February,
Yuschenko released Vasyl Romanchyshyn from the post of deputy minister
of culture and arts. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
===========================================================
4. MOSCOW SLAMS MOLDOVA'S EQUALIZING ALL
WWII PARTICIPANTS

Interfax, Moscow, Russia, Sat, March 19 2005

MOSCOW - Moscow believes the Moldovan government's initiative on
allocating targeted compensations to all those who fought in WWII,
regardless of the side they were fighting for, would insult the memory
of those who fought against the Nazi troops.

"Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin's initiative marking the 60th
anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany on providing targeted
compensations to all participants in the Second World War, regardless
of the side they were fighting for, causes our deep regret," the Russian
Foreign Ministry information and press department said in a statement
posted on its website on Saturday.

"This step by the Moldovan leadership is an insult to the memory of millions
of people, who paid a huge price for the liberation of the republics of the
former USSR, including Moldova, from fascist enslavement," it said.
===========================================================
5. EYE ON EURASIA: RUSSIAN RESENTMENT OVER WWII

By Paul Goble, United Press International (UPI)
Tartu, Estonia, Friday, March 18, 2005

TARTU, Estonia - Valentin Falin, who worked as a translator for Stalin and
later served as Soviet ambassador to West Germany, said in an interview this
week that Western "perfidy" toward the Soviet Union not only lengthened
World War II but cost more than 10 million unnecessary deaths in Eastern
Europe -- including those who died at Auschwitz.

In comments to the RIA-Novosti news agency, Falin expanded on his earlier
suggestions that the United States and Britain conspired to prolong the war,
weaken the Soviet Union, keep the Red Army out of eastern Europe, and even
considered forming an alliance with German generals toward that end
(rian.ru/analytics/20050315/39522674.html).

Falin said that the anti-Soviet positions of Britain and France made it
impossible for them to conclude an agreement with Moscow in 1939 and thus
"did not leave the Soviet leadership with any choice but to conclude with
Germany the (Molotov-Ribbentrop) non-aggression pact."

He added that the Western allies did not share intelligence with the Soviet
government that would have helped them prosecute the war and that the United
States and Britain delayed opening a Second Front until 1944 in the hopes
that the German generals would overthrow Hitler, something he suggested
would have allowed them to ally with Berlin against Moscow.

And as he has done in the past, Falin suggested that American forces even
delayed moving into Paris in 1944 so that the Germans could destroy the
rising there against them, a rising whose members were "in the first
instance" communists.

Falin goes out of his way to stress that his charges are directed at the
political leadership in Washington and London and not at the troops in the
field. He says he has no interest "in minimizing the services of soldiers
and officers of allied forces who fought as did we without knowing anything
about the political intrigues and machinations of their leaders."

But he pointedly says, "Had there not been the delays in the opening of the
Second Front, there would have been 10 to 12 million fewer victims among
the Soviet people and their allies, especially on the occupied territories
of Europe," adding that in that event, "even Auschwitz (Hitler's most
notorious death camp) would not have worked."

Such rhetoric and Falin's rewriting of history were a frequent feature of
the Cold War. They would not be worth noting now except for one thing: They
both reflect and are likely to add to the anger many Russians from President
Vladimir Putin on down feel about what they see as the West's slighting of
the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Hitler.

In the run-up to the May 9 commemoration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary
of the end of World War II in Europe, ever more Russians are angry about
that and at least some of them will be inclined as Falin is to see a broader
Western conspiracy against their country not only now but in the past.

Falin's words reflect that trend, but because his ideas are being
distributed by a major Russian news service, they are likely to further
exacerbate that Russian mood. And at the same time, he undoubtedly hopes
that his remarks may lead some Western leaders to play down criticism of the
Soviet Union under Stalin and step up their praise for the Red Army and its
leader in that war

If that happens, the aging Soviet diplomat will have made yet another
contribution to the Moscow's foreign policy -- but once again by distorting
the historical record and playing on the fears of both his fellow Russians
and the many Western leaders who must deal with his country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Goble teaches at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in
Estonia. [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
===========================================================
6. YUSHCHENKO AND KANTOR FROM EUROPEAN JEWISH
CONGRESS DISCUSS POSSIBILITY OF UKRAINE HOSTING
WORLD HOLOCAUST FORUM IN 2007

Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Fri, March 18, 2005

KYIV - President Viktor Yuschenko and Viatcheslav Kantor, Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the European Jewish Congress, have met to discuss a
possibility of holding in Ukraine the second World Holocaust Forum in 2007
devoted to the history of Babyn Yar and Holocaust. Ukrainian News learned
this from the presidential press service.

According to the report, the President expressed the belief that the event
must be organized in combination with an education program to attract
attention of large audience to the Holocaust problem. Yuschenko stressed
that he condemns any actions of xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

As Ukrainian News earlier reported, during the January meeting with Israeli
President Moshe Katsav the Ukrainian President said "there will be no Jewish
problem" during his presidency. He then stressed that he does not approve
of xenophobia or anti-Semitism in any forms. -30-
=============================================================
7. FOREIGN MINISTER TARASYUK SAYS UKRAINE HAS
PRO-EUROPE STANCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian, 18 Mar 05
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, March 18, 2005

MINSK - Ukrainian Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk has said that the
Ukrainian state will, like the European Union [EU], take note of human
rights violations in the CIS. Speaking at a news conference in Minsk today
he said that "Ukraine's position, taking into account the aims of its
integration into the European Union, will move closer to the stance of the
European Union. If our partners, including those in the CIS, diverge from
observing human rights then our stance will be similar to the stance taken
by the EU".

Tarasyuk says that if there are problems in observing democratic values
"then there should be discussion about them, including discussion within
the CIS". Tarasyuk said: "The sources of the new Ukrainian authorities
should be seen as the result of the victory of democracy and the 'Orange'
Revolution." "This new quality requires respect for the people's right to
choose," Tarasyuk said, adding that these approaches will also be
reflected in Ukraine's foreign policy.

Asked about Ukraine's attitude towards the imprisonment of the former
Belarusian minister for foreign economic ties, Mikhail Marinich, Tarasyuk
said: "This issue has not disappeared from the focus of our attention, and
we will continue to monitor the development of the situation."
"If government opponents are jailed, this cannot but raise questions," he
added.

Tarasyuk said: "The opposition, the government opponents should have
the right to express their positions." "The only method of fight between the
authorities and the opposition should be proof of success in observing the
rule of law and democracy, and improving the people's wellbeing,"
Tarasyuk said. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
===========================================================
8. UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER CHARMS WASHINGTON

By Taras Kuzio, Eurasian Daily Monitor
Volume 2, Issue 52, The Jamestown Foundation
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Ukraine's new Foreign Minister, Borys Tarasyuk, visited Washington, DC,
on March 10-11 to prepare for a four-day state visit by President Viktor
Yushchenko in the first week of April. Tarasyuk's career includes an earlier
stint as Ukraine's foreign minister (1998-2000), ambassador to the Benelux
countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), and as head of
mission to NATO. He was removed in October 2000 after intense lobbying
by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The two high-level visits signify a return to the "golden era" of
U.S.-Ukrainian relations under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s following
very cool relations between President George W. Bush and Leonid Kuchma
after 2000. Addressing the International Republican Institute (IRI),
Tarasyuk called for the revival of a "viable political dialogue on the
highest political level" (iri.org). He advocated reviving the
Ukrainian-American Consultative Committee, which facilitated political
dialogue during the Clinton era but went into decline during Bush's first
term.

Four factors contribute to the new optimism, but two concerns also merit
caution.

FIRST, Tarasyuk, unlike Yushchenko, speaks fluent English. He charmed his
audiences at IRI and at the George Washington University (mfa.gov.ua).
Political culture is important in signifying who is "one of us" and who is
not.

The United States and other Western governments eventually came to realize
that Kuchma and his allies had a completely different political culture.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice never forgave Kuchma for his
deception over the dispatch of Ukrainian arms to Macedonia during its civil
war in 2001. In contrast, Tarasyuk and Yushchenko share a political culture
that is recognized as "one of us." The importance of personal communications
cannot be over-emphasized and will only be increased by Yushchenko's
American-born spouse, Katya, and Tarasyuk's facility with English.

SECOND, Tarasyuk noted the cold shoulder given to Ukraine by what he termed
"Europe" (meaning the EU) and then expressed thanks for the support given to
Ukraine by IRI Chairman and Senator John McCain, the U.S. Congress, and
Senator Richard Lugar (Bush's Special Envoy to Ukraine in round two of the
2004 elections). Yushchenko will address both houses of Congress in April,
and he has also accepted an invitation to speak at IRI.

No doubt recalling then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's refusal to
recognize Ukraine's official presidential election results on November 24,
Tarasyuk argued that during the 2004 elections the United States "was a
friend giving hope that the democratic world would not turn a blind eye"
should non-democratic forces attempt to rig the election. The United States
"was a friend from whom we expected solidarity and support" and it "did not
make any concessions behind the Ukrainian people's backs," Tarasyuk told
the IRI audience.

THIRD, Tarasyuk sought to dispel any notion that the planned withdrawal of
Ukrainian troops from Iraq, where they are the fourth-largest contingent,
should be interpreted as "anti-American." The U.S. side claimed to
understand that Yushchenko needed to fulfill his election pledge. Notably,
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke to Tarasyuk at the U.S.
Embassy reception and talked with him the next day in a more official
capacity.

As a commentator pointed out in Ukrayinska pravda (March 15), perhaps this
exchange signified that U.S.-Ukraine relations are no longer gauged solely
by Ukraine's contribution to Iraq. Tarasyuk told his IRI audience that Kyiv
would work to minimize any disruptions caused by its withdrawal.

FOURTH, Tarasyuk emphasized that the United States and Ukraine "share
the same values: global promotion of democracy, struggle against terrorism,
strengthening of European and Trans-Atlantic security." This is again
related to issues of political culture. Tarasyuk promised to ensure that
there would no longer be "Ukraine fatigue" in the West, as President
Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko "have the political will to
make these changes" that will make Ukraine eligible for WTO membership
and Euro-Atlantic integration.

The two yellow flags deal with Russia and are interrelated.

FIRST, it is surprising that Tarasyuk, long an ardent supporter of Ukraine's
membership in NATO, did not mention that goal even once during his IRI
speech. NATO membership is far more sensitive to both the United States and
Russia than is EU membership. Ironically, the EU's continued disregard of
Ukraine's desire for EU membership, because "old Europe" does not wish to
upset Russia, will only push Kyiv to integrate faster into NATO, which
Russia wants even less.

The new Ukrainian leadership sees NATO membership as a stepping-stone
to EU membership, not as a way to defend the country against Russia. The
U.S.-Ukraine partnership, Tarasyuk pointed out, "is not an alliance against
any third party" (i.e. Russia). In Russia the United States is often
mistakenly equated with NATO.

SECOND, the United States is key to Ukraine's membership in NATO. Currently,
pro-Ukrainian views dominate Washington because of the Orange Revolution
and Yushchenko's integrity. Opinions about Russia, however, are now far more
despondent compared to the positive atmosphere afforded Putin in his, and
Bush's, first terms in office.

At the same time, U.S. policy has an inherent contradiction in how it deals
with Russia and Ukraine. This inconsistency was clearly seen during Bush's
February tour of Europe. In Brussels, Bush again declared U.S. support for
worldwide democratization. Bush met Yushchenko in Brussels, and the
Ukrainian leader no doubt welcomed this U.S. position. But days later in
Bratislava, Bush spoke in realist and geopolitical terms with an autocratic
leader, Putin, and kept democratization issues in the background.

Perhaps the United States also has a multi-vector foreign policy toward
Ukraine and Russia? -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
=============================================================
9. UKRAINIAN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENTS STATE UNDERSTANDING
AT NEWS CONFERENCE

TV 5 Kanal, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1650 gmt 19 Mar 05
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, March 19, 2005

KYIV - The Russian and Ukrainian presidents have said they reached new
understanding during President Vladimir Putin's visit to Kiev. Speaking at a
news conference, both Putin and Viktor Yushchenko said they were determined
to speed up solutions to existing problems in a new bilateral action plan to
be drawn up by the governments for 2005. They also agreed to meet regularly
within a Putin-Yushchenko commission on cooperation.

Answering questions from journalists after the opening speeches, Yushchenko
said Ukraine proposed a compromise on Sea of Azov border delimitation and
also suggested that Russia recognize the Soviet-time border between the
Russian and Ukrainian republics in the Kerch Strait as a state border now.

The presidents said their meeting had covered the continuing deployment of
the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, work on a joint gas consortium to
operate Ukrainian pipelines, arms trade, the separatist Dniester region in
Moldova and the issues of citizenship, language and religion.

Yushchenko urged a free-trade agreement to close Ukraine's deficit in
bilateral trade, while Putin urged Ukraine not to leave the Single Economic
Space with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The following is the text of the presidents' news conference and the ensuing
question-and-answer session broadcast live by Ukrainian 5 Kanal television
on 19 March; subheadings inserted editorially:

[YUSHCHENKO, in Ukrainian] Esteemed Mr President, esteemed audience,
friends and colleagues! I would like to stress that today's visit is the
continuation of our dialogue which we began in Moscow. Our meeting today
demonstrates our common desire to see constructive bilateral relations. I
value very much the readiness of the Russian head of state to work together
on achieving these common goals. I am convinced that this approach benefits
the strategic interests of both Ukraine and Russia.
[in Russian from then on] Now let me switch to the Russian language to
ensure language comfort. Our meeting has given us the chance to see for
ourselves that we have no unanswerable questions. We have the understanding
and the political will to remove those artificial barriers which were put up
over the years on the path towards equal and mutually beneficial
partnership. I believe that today we made a very important step towards
making the relations between Ukraine and Russia as constructive as possible.
Undoubtedly, the results of our work will facilitate economic growth and the
prosperity of citizens in both our countries.
During the talks, we discussed plans for implementing priority projects in
Ukrainian-Russian relations in 2005. Today we had a very important
constructive dialogue, and I can say for sure that we found common ground
for deepening strategic partnership between Ukraine and Russia. We want to
improve the quality of our dialogue and fill every treaty with strategic
content. Today we discussed the stationing of [Russia's] Black Sea Fleet on
the territory of Ukraine, joint energy projects, the Ukrainian-Russian
border, military and technical cooperation, the Dniester conflict,
humanitarian and cultural heritage issues.

YUSHCHENKO URGES FREE TRADE
The main topic, of course, was trade and economic ties and economic
cooperation. In my opinion, the main problem in these relations is the deep
trade deficit and the relatively high rate at which the deficit is growing.
For example, in 2000 Ukraine's trade deficit was about 2bn [dollars], but in
2004 the deficit was about 6bn. Every year it grows by 36-40 per cent. The
only way to solve this problem is to create a free-trade area. That is why
we spent considerable time on this topic. Our governments have been tasked
with coordinating the proposals submitted by the two sides and presenting a
coordinated package of joint actions to the presidents. I want to say right
away that this will be a very concrete plan which will provide for mutually
acceptable ways to solve these problems.
Our plan will be aimed at not only improving bilateral economic ties. Its
main priority is expanding the human dimension of our partnership and
removing unnecessary obstacles to contacts between our citizens. We covered
all the issues concerning the functioning of borders and simplifying border
crossing procedures for people living near the border. We also discussed
relaxing the procedure for acquiring citizenship. We agreed to set specific
tasks to our governments on all these issues: on the demarcation of the
Ukrainian-Russian border, the Black Sea Fleet, WTO entry and the settlement
of the Dniester conflict.
In order to take our relations to a new standard of quality, we agreed to
abolish the intergovernmental commission and to set up a high-level
interstate Putin-Yushchenko commission, which will be made up of four
committees working in specific areas, such as defence, international
cooperation, economic ties and humanitarian issues.
Overall coordination of the interstate commission's work has been entrusted
to the national security and defence councils of Ukraine and Russia. I
sincerely wish Mr Putin and Russia to know that the new Ukrainian
authorities are responsible authorities and will always demonstrate
predictability, honesty and pragmatic policy in relations with a strategic
partner.
Also, I would like to stress that our foreign policy is not aimed against
anybody. We will never consider Ukraine's European choice as an alternative
to cooperation with the Russian Federation. Russia is our eternal neighbour,
whom Ukraine wants to see as a friend and strategic partner.
Our talks have proved once again that Vladimir Vladimirovich shares this
opinion. That is why I am happy to give the floor to him. Thank you.

PUTIN NOTES NEW UNDERSTANDING, GOOD WILL
[PUTIN, in Russian throughout] Thank you very much. Dear Viktor Andriyovych,
dear ladies and gentlemen. First of all, I would like to thank the Ukrainian
president for inviting me to Kiev. Today we had lengthy and substantive
talks. It is the second time we are meeting in the last two months of this
year, and I think that such a dynamic is quite logical, considering the fact
that Ukraine and Russia are naturally the closest and truly strategic
partners. I fully agree with the Ukrainian president on this one. It is
quite natural that top-level political dialogue between our states cannot
tolerate any pause or delay. Virtually the whole range of issues of
bilateral cooperation was at the centre of discussion.
Viktor Andriyovych and I have known each other for quite a long time, since
he headed the government as Ukrainian prime minister. I get the impression
that he never lost touch with the executive because the meeting was prepared
very thoroughly. We discussed practically all the issues of our cooperation.
I would like to note straightaway that the conversation turned out to be
both substantive and very frank.
But the main thing is that we are resolved to work together in a
constructive way. We can feel it on the part of our Ukrainian colleagues,
and we understand very well that continuous strengthening of
Ukrainian-Russian relations in many fields is consistent with the vital
interests of both citizens of Ukraine and citizens of the Russian
Federation.
Now on to the most important results of our meeting. First of all, we agreed
in the immediate future to approve a Russian-Ukrainian action plan for 2005.
It provides for implementation of major projects practically in every area
of Russian and Ukrainian collaboration. An important component of that plan
is humanitarian cooperation. In Moscow now, preparations are under way to
open a Ukrainian library. For our part, we plan to begin construction of a
Russian cultural centre in Kiev. As you know, a Ukrainian cultural centre
has already opened in Moscow.
We also discussed preparations for celebrating the 60th anniversary of the
great victory. The people of Russia and Ukraine know well the price of
victory in the Great Patriotic War [World War II] and realize all too well
that victory was gained not only with weapons, but also with the spirit of
unity among all the peoples of the Soviet Union.
We also agreed to approve two updated programmes. These programmes
concern economic, regional and border cooperation. As regards the
programme of economic cooperation, at Viktor Andriyovych's initiative we
agreed to update all our priorities, put them on paper, analyse as soon as
possible what has been done - and what has not been done for whatever
reason - and outline development prospects.
One of the central themes at this meeting was the prospects of developing
Russian-Ukrainian economic ties, naturally. Last year, bilateral trade
increased by more than 40 per cent and approached the 17bn-dollar mark.
This is a record high since Russia and Ukraine started trading as sovereign
nations. And it should act as a departure point for all our future efforts,
including those to form a civilized infrastructure for business ties,
develop financial, legal and organizational tools. The president of Ukraine
spoke earlier of some imbalance. I think this is a subject to be discussed
at the level of experts. Most likely this has to do with rising fuel prices,
but we understand the concern on the part of Ukraine's leaders and are ready
to look for a joint solution to these issues. They are not extraordinary or
insurmountable. I think we will find solutions in the process of our work.
I would like to say in this context that the Russian Vneshtorgbank today
opened a branch in Kiev, which will support implementation of large joint
projects.
Expanding bilateral cooperation will largely depend on success in the
formation of the Single Economic Space [common market between Russia,
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan]. I am confident that successful
implementation of this idea will provide our countries with additional
opportunities to develop trade and bilateral investment and to strengthen
the competitive edge of our economies. And we could feel that the Ukrainian
leadership was interested in promoting this project - naturally, in the form
and at a pace that suits individual participants.
Among other subjects we discussed, as the president has already mentioned,
was the long-term deployment of Russian ships, of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet in Ukraine under existing interstate agreements and the work of the
respective logistical infrastructure.
The Ukrainian president and I had a detailed discussion of the issues
concerning the Azov-Kerch settlement and believe we should step up work
on drafting agreements that would set out specific directions of joint
efforts
both in the Sea of Azov and in the Kerch Strait. The most important thing is
for all these efforts not to get in the way of economic activities, not to
get in the way of people's normal life and work, but to help them and to
provide necessary conditions for economic ties and humanitarian contacts
between the citizens of our countries. We are confident that it is possible
to do, that these tasks can be met, and we are fully determined to meet
these tasks together.
In conclusion, I would like again to thank the president of Ukraine for a
constructive and businesslike discussion. I expect that everything we've
planned will be implemented successfully. I would also like to thank the
people of Kiev. We could feel their good will about our working together
today. We could see it in the mood of the people in the street. Thank you
very much for that.
GAS TRANSPORT CONSORTIUM
[Moderator, in Russian throughout] We are moving on to questions. We
have several questions. One Plus One [Ukrainian television] please.
[Questioner] I have a question to both presidents. Although you did not
mention talks on a gas transport consortium, you probably talked about this.
In this regard, please tell us why Germany has been, in effect, missing from
the negotiating process in recent years although Chancellor Schroeder was
one of the initiators of the idea. Vladimir Vladimirovich, you met Schroeder
and Putin [makes a mistake] to discuss this. In the light of this, Viktor
Andriyovych, what is the future of the gas transport consortium today?
Thank you.
[Putin, jokingly] I meet Putin every day. [Yushchenko laughs.]
[Yushchenko] Vladimir Vladimirovich, go ahead.
[Putin] Actually, it was Ukraine and Russia that initiated the consortium.
We agreed that we would involve our European partners in our joint work. The
most natural partner to us is Germany because it is the largest consumer of
Russian natural gas and Germany gets most of the gas via the Ukrainian
transport system. That is why the idea of inviting our German partners was
expressed at the initial stage. But we do not rule out and would welcome the
participation of other European partners. Gaz de France expressed interest,
Italy's ENI and so on and so forth. We are ready to broaden this
cooperation. But technologically it was quite difficult to agree, on a
bilateral basis, the positions that experts considered crucial.
On the whole, we believe that the work and the project are at a quite
advanced stage. I see no problems with implementing it. Viktor Andriyovych
and I today paid quite a lot of attention to this subject. The president
formulated his approach, the essence of which is that we will not seek to
revise the agreements reached. We agree with that. We have always proceeded
from the need not just to respect, but to take full account of the national
interests of the participants in the project. Otherwise it would be
ineffective. I would like the Ukrainian public not to think that there are
some unknown agreements. There no unknown agreements. Russia is keen
to see our western European partners take part in the project. It is keen
because, in our view, this would make the project more transparent and
more civilized.
We think that Ukraine is just as interested in this project, because a huge
amount of money needs to be invested in the reconstruction and expansion
of the existing network. Why has the process slowed down a little lately? I
think this has to do with the political processes in Ukraine, first of all.
We understand this, we are waiting, and we are prepared to wait more, but I
think now when the situation in Ukraine is stabilizing, which we are very
glad to see, the time has come to move this project forward.
[Yushchenko] We have reached understanding on this issue. The gas
transport system in its current state remains the property of Ukraine. The
gas transport consortium will deal with the new initiatives to expand the
possibilities of Ukraine's gas transport system. As for the talks, I think
Vladimir Vladimirovich is right, over the past four to five months, when we
had these difficult political elections in Ukraine, many people, including
the ministers, did not pay attention to this project. We agreed with
Vladimir Vladimirovich that this week or next week Energy Minister Ivan
Plachkov and the head of the Naftohaz Ukraine company, [Oleksiy] Ivchenko,
will visit Moscow and hold talks with their colleagues, will study the
material on this project, and I think this is enough to launch this process.
[Putin] I absolutely agree. And I want to say again that no-one is trying to
steal anything. We are interested in another thing. It is important for it
to work, to function. We must be sure that the transit system of our gas to
our customers in Western Europe works like clockwork. I must say that
Ukraine has substantial preferences because of this. I don't remember the
exact volume, it gets 85 per cent of its gas in exchange for transit.
[Yushchenko] One hundred and twenty-seven billion pumped.
[Putin] The budget gets 127bn regularly. If we expand these possibilities,
it will get even more.
UKRAINIAN NEGOTIATOR ON SINGLE ECONOMIC SPACE
APPOINTED
[Moderator] Please, Oleg Osipov, RIA Novosti.
[Questioner] Good evening. I have a question to the Ukrainian president. At
the previous meeting in Moscow, you said that shortly Ukraine would make up
its mind on the format and nature of its participation in the SES [Single
Economic Space] and that a person would be appointed to deal with the
negotiating process. Could you please say whether you have managed to do
that, whether Ukraine has made up its mind and whether you have selected the
man from the government to be responsible for this? Thank you.
[Yushchenko] Yes. Economics Minister Serhiy Teryokhin will be dealing with
issues of the Single Economic Space on behalf of Ukraine. I also grant him
additional status as a special presidential representative on this issue. We
are in the middle of a negotiating process.
As a party, we proceed from our belief that the most important, priority
stage, especially during the initial formation of the Single Economic Space,
is the creation of a free trade area, which could settle all the problems
regarding trade exclusions and restrictions. This is the best response to
more active trade relations, which would eliminate the trade imbalance which
we have today and which is growing considerably, causing alarm not only on
the part of the president and the government, but also economic agents.
We are forced to look for new markets to compensate for the loss of positive
activity in our bilateral relations.
We believe that the second most important question that could be raised
within the work of the Single Economic Space is the formation of
infrastructure projects involving Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus and
other countries. In other words, we should prove the viability of this
structure with projects of this kind. We should demonstrate respect for the
interests of various participants and partners in this economic project.
Thank you.
[Putin] Teryokhin, right?
[Yushchenko] Teryokhin.
[Putin] Huh?
[Yushchenko] Teryokhin. Serhiy Teryokhin.
[Putin] Te-ryo-khin?
[Yushchenko] Te-ryo-khin.
[Putin] Well, you see, Ukraine is represented by Serhiy Teryokhin and Russia
is represented by a man with a name dear to Ukrainian ears - Khristenko.
[laughter in the room; Yushchenko laughs]

UKRAINIAN BORDER PROPOSALS
[Moderator] 5 Kanal please.
[Questioner] A question to the presidents about the border. Viktor
Andriyovych, could you formulate Ukraine's position? Where do we want the
maritime border to run and when? Also, a question to the Russian president.
How do you assess this initiative from Ukraine? How do you think this issue
should be settled and where do you see the maritime border? Thank you.
[Yushchenko] I made a proposal to Vladimir Vladimirovich to dedicate the
year 2005 to the problem of settling our border issues. What are those
issues, in my opinion? The first point is the demarcation of the border on
land. There are almost no issues regarding delimitation there. I think that
on this issue we have reached full understanding.
There are outstanding issues regarding the delimitation of the border in Sea
of Azov and the Kerch Strait. And a little bit regarding the Black Sea,
where there are no problems. We made the proposal to Russia to recognize
the border in the Kerch Strait as it was between the republics [of the
USSR] -
the former [Ukrainian] Soviet Socialist Republic and [Russia's] Krasnodar
Territory - which was documented on all the maps starting from the postwar
[World War II] period. A border existed on this stretch of our adjacent
territory, and we propose that it should be recognized as such.
Regarding the delimitation of the water body of the Sea of Azov, we proposed
a compromise, which I hope Russia will consider and make a statement to this
effect.
[Putin] The president, in principle, formulated Ukraine's approaches. As you
know, my personal view of things has always been this - if we wish to build
strategic relations and to have full trust between us, we should sort out
all imaginable problems. One of them is certainly border settlement. That is
why several years ago I instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other
services to complete work on the land border as soon as possible.
We are also making progress, I believe, on the Azov-Kerch problems, which
had been stalled for years. No-one would touch it with a barge pole then.
Now there are certain agreements, there are basic documents, which would
allow us to take the next steps. But I am unable to answer all the questions
right now because this issue has to be discussed at the expert level. I am
sure that, with a benevolent approach by both parties and with willingness
to reach agreement, such agreements will be reached.

NO PROBLEMS IN BILATERAL RELATIONS
[Moderator] Moskovskiy Komsomolets, Vika, please.
[Questioner] Good evening. I have a question to President Yushchenko. Viktor
Andriyovych, as mentioned before, this is your second meeting with Vladimir
Putin since your election. Tell me please, do you now understand Russia's
policy towards Ukraine? Another question is to President Putin. Vladimir
Vladimirovich, you talked about the simple Kievites' reaction to your visit,
but still you spent most of the day with Ukrainian leaders. Can you please
say a few words about the atmosphere during these talks? Thank you.
[Yushchenko] You know, I was surprised that in the pile of questions
discussed today we did not find questions that we could not agree on. Our
meeting was very long, I think we spoke openly on strategic issues
concerning our bilateral relations. I was surprised most of all, when I
finished with my part, I saw Vladimir Vladimirovich putting aside a pile of
notecards that we agreed on. Vladimir Vladimirovich, I noticed that you put
aside a large portion of your notecards. This means that we hit the
bull's-eye, and I am satisfied with the openness, the spirit and pragmatism
of our talks. It helped to take a different view on many things, I think,
both for the Ukrainian side and the Russian side.
[Putin] My observations fully correspond with those of my Ukrainian
colleague. Very friendly, most constructive. In the text which I had
prepared here I had a phrase saying that, of course, we have different views
on some issues. You know, I crossed that phrase out. If you noticed, I did
not say it. Of course, with this volume of mutual interests and mutual work
sometimes different approaches are taken to some problems. But today during
talks with the president, the prime minister and the speaker of parliament
we did not get the feeling that there are some problems in our relations.
They simply do not exist. There are some questions which we need to work
on together, but this is a normal course of cooperation. I am satisfied with
today's meetings and talks.

[Moderator, in Ukrainian] Esteemed audience, thank you for your attention.
[Switches to Russian] Thank you for your attention. Goodbye.
============================================================
9. PUTIN MAKES TRICKY FORAY TO UKRAINE

By Ron Popeski, Reuters, Kyiv, Ukraine, Sat, Mar 19, 2005

KIEV (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has launched
a tricky diplomatic foray into Ukraine, now under liberal management,
after promising European powers he would support pro-Western
President Viktor Yushchenko.

Putin flew into Kiev from Paris on Saturday and went straight into
talks with the president, who took office in January after mass
street protests over a rigged election that initially gave victory to
his Moscow-backed rival.

Putin, who met the leaders of France, Germany and Spain on Friday,
was to stay in Kiev for only a few hours. He was also meeting Prime
Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, widely viewed in Russia as a untrustworthy
radical, and parliament speaker and key political figure Volodymyr
Lytvyn.

Local media quoted Yushchenko as telling Putin at the start of the
talks that the leaders would discuss the "Common Economic Space"
which Moscow promotes as a vehicle to boost economic links between
former Soviet republics.

Also on the agenda were proposals to form a company to oversee
transit of Russian gas to western Europe.

Yushchenko describes Russia as an "eternal strategic partner", but has
committed himself to moving Ukraine out of Moscow's political orbit into
mainstream Europe, with the long-term goal of joining the European Union.

He has been warmly received on trips he has made to western Europe,
although EU officials have told him to tackle one issue at a time in moving
towards Europe.

BLOW TO KREMLIN POLICY
Putin visited Ukraine twice before last year's election and Yushchenko's
victory was widely seen as a blow to Kremlin policy in ex-Soviet states it
still views as its sphere of influence.

But after his talks in Paris, Putin was at pains to put his past support for
Yushchenko's opponents behind him.

"We have no preference for any political force because we want the
development of equal cooperation with the Ukrainian state and people,"
he said at a news conference in Paris. "We will do all we can to support
the Ukrainian leadership and will use our influence to avert any political
crisis in the country."

His comments suggested that Russia, which supplies most of Ukraine's
energy needs, would not exert economic pressure or foment discontent
in Ukraine's Russian-speaking industrial east.

Moscow's complicated relations with Ukraine form part of a broader
picture of declining Russian influence in the region.

Georgia, where a pro-Western president came to power more than a
year ago, and Moldova, where a communist leader accuses Moscow
of meddling in his country's Dnestr region, are two other ex-Soviet
states aspiring to shift westwards away from Moscow.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said in Paris that Moscow
and the EU both had an interest in stability in Ukraine, which has
borders with three new EU members as well as Russia.

Commentators said it remained to be seen how strongly Putin would
press now for Ukraine to join the Common Economic Space.

Ministers in the new government have not rejected the notion of
consolidating ties with ex-Soviet states, provided it does not
clash with its European aspirations. -30-
=============================================================
10. UKRAINIAN TV: A VIEW FROM INSIDE OR OUT?

Kyiv Weekly, #10 (150), Kyiv, Ukraine, March 18 - 25, 2005

It seems that normal standards of journalism are finally being revived in
Ukraine. Even the Ukraina TV and radio broadcasting company that belongs
to Rinat Akhmetov and which was the mouthpiece of propaganda for Viktor
Yanukovych in the presidential race, is now reporting more or less balanced
news that far from glorifies the president or the premier.

On the other hand, Channel 5 and the Era television and radio broadcasting
company have switched from their revolutionary fervor to sober and unbiased
skepticism. Finally, the national TV channel UT-1, which continues to follow
its tradition of informing the people about news of the government's
activity, presents news without the previous apparent servility. This fact
alone should come as a pleasant surprise to TV viewers.

But all these changes are not enough to speak of the full and undisputed
victory of citizens' rights to receive firsthand, reliable information. As a
matter of fact, the competition between TV channels fighting for their
audience regularly stumbles over obstacles created by their owners.

For example, the skepticism of Channel 5 and Era TV can be attributed to
the fact that the ambitions of politicians running them have not been fully
satisfied. This applies specifically to NSDC Secretary Petro Poroshenko and
the national deputy of Ukraine Andriy Derkach. It is by chance or without
reason that both these channels are now making decisive steps to fill in the
so far vacant niche of public television in Ukraine.

Incidentally, Era in its form and dynamics of presenting information blocks
now almost totally corresponds to European standards. Meanwhile, Channel
5 has announced the ambitious goal of becoming "the leading information
channel" with newsreels broadcast every hour.

However, if the owners of these TV channels suddenly reach harmony in their
relations with Yuliya Tymoshenko, the possibility that the journalists
working for these channels will adopt the same opinions and sentiments of
the premier, even if no pressure is put on them, should not be ruled.

Meanwhile, judging from the news and business programs on Ukraina TV
channel, it is obvious its owners are even more concerned with the issue of
establishing good relations with the new government. Indeed, almost every
broadcast actively passes of the idea of "the need for seeking common
language between the government and the business". Interestingly, the same
trend can be observed on ICTV, STB and Noviy Kanal TV channels, which are
considered the property of people's deputy Viktor Pinchuk.

All this is accompanied by subjects or themes defending the property rights
of the owners of these TV channels, who also own the enterprises the new
government is threatening to take away from them through re-privatization.
The perfect example of these latest government efforts is KryvoRizhStal,
which not accidentally is owned by Pinchuk and Akhmetov.

In connection with this, one should also point out the campaign launched on
ICTV defending the recently fired chairman of the national joint stock
company NaftoGaz Ukrainy Yuriy Boyko.

Meanwhile, on 1+1, Inter and TET TV channels, affiliated with the SDPU(u),
the main informational war is being waged around the country's oblenergos
(oblast energy distribution companies) and the Dynamo Kyiv soccer team,
which are structures that Russian businessman Konstantin Grigorishin is
planning to obtain. According to certain journalists at TET, who requested
anonymity, the TV channel's management organized a "voluntary strike
supporting their favorite team". Meanwhile, the NTN company owned by
Donetsk businessman Edward Prutnik is simply fighting to survive. Indeed,
it is currently in the middle of court trial with the National Television
and Radio Broadcasting Council for regarding its license for
broadcasting.

Meanwhile, the Donetsk-based TV company Kyivska Rus associated with
the former prosecutor general Hennadiy Vasilyev stands out for its blatant
one-sideness in presenting information. Apparently, "the orange winds of
change" did not have any impact on the news blocks of this particular
channel. In fact, this is the only TV channel in Ukraine distinct for its
strict opposition against the current government and inciting the embittered
moods of the people. This is actually not surprising given the fact that all
bridges between Vasilyev and Yushchenko were burnt long ago.

Generally speaking, the majority of TV channels, despite their differences,
comply with specific common rules of game on the information field.
Meanwhile, only a few viewers would claim he or she has a favorite or fully
trustworthy TV channel. Indeed, the majority of viewers prefer switching
from one channel to the other in order to see the same events from different
angles and then form their own opinion. This is especially true in light of
the current on-going conflicts the owners of these TV channels are inveigled
in. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.kyivweekly.com/english/article/?402
=============================================================
11. UKRAINE: RUSSIA'S YOUNGER BROTHER?

By Sam Vaknin, Ph.D., Global Politician Website
Independent Journal of Politics, Economics and World Affairs
Monday, March 14, 2005

The "Orange Revolution" in October-November 2004 was a coup d'etat. It
was a disorderly, though popular, transfer of power from one group within
the "Dniepropetrovsk clan", headed by Leonid Kuchma and his henchman
to another faction, headed by the volatile and incompatible Viktor
Yuschenko and Yulia Timoshenko.

Both figures had served in senior positions (as prime minister, for
instance) in the ancien regime and, therefore, may have skeletons in their
cupboards. A spate of "suicides" committed by former and knowledgeable
functionaries came as no surprise - both parties, outgoing and incoming,
have a vested interest in suppressing embarrassing revelations.

Still, Ukraine's long-predicted economic revival is at hand. After a long
hiatus, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are expected
to make new commitments in their forthcoming visits this year. As correctly
observed by the former Finance Minister Mykola Azarov, Ukraine needs at
least $600 to 800 million in fresh funds. Debt repayments amounted to $1.6
billion in both 2003 and 2004. Ukraine is even considering a bond issue.

Concurrently, as it did in 2003, NATO is likely to stage in Ukraine a
massive one week long military exercise under the aegis of the "Partner-
ship for Peace" - its collaborative program with the countries of East and
Southeast Europe. It will involve army units from Armenia, Austria,
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Germany, Georgia, Italy, Canada, Kyrgyzstan,
Lithuania, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, France, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
and the United States.

But Ukraine was embraced by the international community long before the
Orange Revolution. It is instructive to follow the rising temperatures that
led to the thaw. It seems that in Ukraine's case carrots did the trick - not
sticks, a lesson worth remembering in the forthcoming confrontation with
Iran.

This, therefore, is an overview of the two years leading to Ukraine's 2004
presidential elections.

The USA already cancelled in 2003 financial sanctions it had earlier imposed
on Ukraine on the recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force. Ukraine
is no longer a center of money laundering, said the international watchdog.
It was be removed from the agency's blacklist last year and joined the
EGMONT group of the financial intelligence units of 69 countries.

There were other signs of thawing. A 16-month ban on $11 million in U.S.
poultry imports was terminated in April 2003 with the signing of a revised
veterinary certificate protocol. Simultaneously, Ukrainian officials held
talks with their European Union counterparts to integrate the two space
programs. Ukraine has expertise in launch vehicles, satellites and payloads.
And Volkswagen inked a letter of intent in 2003 regarding the assembly of
its Passat, Golf, Bora and Polo models in Ukraine.

According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, in March 2003, the EU offered
Russia, Ukraine, and Moldova - its future neighbors following enlargement -
"preferential trade terms, expanded transport, energy, and telecommunication
links, and the possibility of visa-free travel to the EU." The door to
future accession was left ajar, though the inclusion of North African
nations in the "New Neighborhood Policy" bodes ill for Ukraine's future
membership.

Long-stalled negotiations between Ukraine and the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development over the $215 million financing of two
much-disputed nuclear power plants to replace the smoldering Chernobyl
reactor were mysteriously restarted in April 2003 and successfully concluded
the year after, to the chagrin of many environmentalists. The Bank's
President, Jean Lemierre, promised at the time positive results by summer -
despite environmental concerns and studies, financed by the EBRD itself,
which cast in doubt the project's feasibility.

Quoted by Interfax-Ukraine, then Foreign Ministry spokesman Markijan
Lubkivskyy, announced in early April 2003, that "the U.S. may subcontract
Ukrainian companies (for postwar reconstruction in Iraq), particularly those
that have experience in working with firms in the Persian Gulf."

There were good news from the East as well.

Turkmenistan and Russia started negotiating with Ukraine - a major gas
importer - a tripartite 25 year agreement to exploit and export Turkmen
natural gas with prices frozen throughout at current levels, well below the
market. In return, Ukraine is supposed to co-finance the construction of a
$1 billion, 1070 kilometer long, 30 to 40 billion cubic meters a year,
pipeline, mostly on Kazakh territory, along the shores of the energy-rich
Caspian Sea.

Inevitably, not all was rosy.

In contravention of all prior measures of liberalization, President Leonid
Kuchma administratively halved grain exports to 1 million tons a month, due
to a weak harvest in the first quarter of 2003 and rising domestic grain
prices. The Crimean agricultural ministry announced at the time that one is
seven hectares of winter crops - mostly barley - are lost due to the harsh
weather.

This is half the average ratio in other parts of Ukraine. According to
AgWeb.com, "the country's milling wheat crop (in 2003) may be only 10
million metric tons to 12 MMT, down sharply from 22 MMT in 2002 and 26
MMT in 2001". Domestic consumption, at 7 million tons, now equals
inventories.

The country - formerly Europe's breadbasket - still lacks modern
infrastructure and grain storage facilities. Its extempore export policy is
muddled. Agricultural imports are surging. Ukraine bought 70,000 tons of -
mainly Brazilian - sugar in February 2003 alone.

In the worst of Stalinist traditions, the former Deputy Prime Minister for
Agriculture Leonid Kozachenko, a reformer, was promptly arrested by
Kuchma's security apparatus for "bribery and tax evasion". Grain merchants,
foreign investors and multinationals included, were placed under official
scrutiny.

In an unusually strongly worded letter to Ukraine's then Ambassador to the
United States Kostyantyn Hryshchenko, President of Ukraine-US Business
Council, Kempton B. Jenkins wrote:

"We hope that this effort to turn back the clock to Soviet-style management
of Ukraine's critical sector will soon disappear and allow Ukraine's
dramatic march to productivity and prosperity to resume."

Nor has Ukraine forsaken its erstwhile clients, frowned upon by an
increasingly assertive United States. According to IRNA, the Iranian news
agency, a Ukrainian delegation visited Iran in April 2003 to discuss the
construction of Antonov An-140 aircraft. Later that week, Pakistan and
Ukraine negotiated a free trade agreement.

Standard and Poor's, the international rating agency, concluded, in a report
it released the same month, that "despite some early successes, the
political environment in Ukraine remains difficult and financing
uncertainties continue".

The Sovietologist John Armstrong dubbed the Ukrainians the Russians'
"smaller brothers". This is no longer true. Unlike Russia, Ukraine aspires
to NATO membership but is far less pro-American. It seeks Russian
investments but is wary of the imperial intentions of its neighbor. Despite
Russian coaxing, Ukraine hasn't even joined the Eurasian Economic
Community, a pet project of the Russia-dominated Commonwealth of
Independent States.

In the meantime, Ukraine is bleeding both its least-skilled, menial
workers - and its most highly educated brains. Ukrainians are welcome
nowhere and abused everywhere. Israel deported 300 illegal Ukrainian
aliens in 2003 alone. Others - notably Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia,
and Italy - followed suit.

Ukraine's then ombudswoman Nina Karpachova pegs the number of
economic exiles at between 2 and 7 million. At least 5 million - one fifth
of the workforce - seek seasonal employment abroad. Remittances
amount to between $2 and $3 billion a year.

One quarter of all Ukrainians barely survive under the wretched poverty
line. Official unemployment - at 11 percent - underestimates the problem
by half. A low birth rate conspires with elevated mortality to produce a
self-induced demographic genocide.

Capital flight is on the rise and equals half the foreign direct investment
in the economy. Then Governor of the National Bank, Sergiy Tyhypko,
estimated in February 2003 that as much as $ 2.27 billion fled Ukraine in
2002 - compared to $898 million in 2001 and $385 million in 2000. This
is the reflection of a thriving informal economy, half the size of its
formal counterpart, by some measures.

Appearances aside, ubiquitous corruption, tottering banks, clannish
institutions, compromised leadership, illicit deals and barely contained
xenophobia are entrenched in Ukraine's criminalized economy. As the 2004
presidential elections neared, the oligarchs augmented their war chests
abroad. Kuchma failed to postpone the elections to 2006 or 2007. The
opposition aggressively opposed such chicanery. Despite the Orange
Revolution, or maybe because of it, Ukraine may be in for a bumpy ride
ahead. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism
Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as
a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and
eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business
Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe
categories in The Open Directory and Suite101. Until recently, he served
as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia. Sam Vaknin's
Web site is at http://samvak.tripod.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=426
===========================================================
12. TARAS THE BARD...IMMORTALIZED IN A MONUMENT

By Stanislav Tsalyk, The Kyiv Weekly, Issue #8 (148)
Kyiv, Ukraine, March 4-11, 2005

March 9 is the birthday of Taras Shevchenko. The monument to the great
Ukrainian bard and poetic hero of Ukraine unveiled in Kyiv in 1939 could
have appeared a quarter of a century earlier and in a totally different
section of the city

Fundraising for raising the monument to the great poet in Kyiv began in
1904. In May 1909, the Kyiv City Council gave official approval for its
construction on Mykhailivska Ploshcha (Square). Resolving all issues in
the process of construction was entrusted to the Shevchenko Committee.

At the same time, a trustee of the Kyiv Educational District sent a letter
to the governor-general, in which he expressed doubt concerning the
expediency of raising a monument to the Ukrainian poet near a “Russian
government educational institution.” Instead, the official proposed raising
a monument to “a figure in Russian history” in its place. Soon, it was
announced that a monument to Princess Olha would be built on Mykhailivska
Square and the Shevchenko monument would be moved to Karavayev
Square (today, Lev Tolstoy Square).

However, the Shevchenko Committee rejected the new place as being
inappropriate. Committee members inspected several other places in Kyiv
as an alternative. The choice of a public garden near the Golden Gates
elicited no objections, while the small area in front of the Shevchenko
National Opera Theater was considered too small.

Meanwhile, the intersection of Pushkinska St. and the present-day Shevchenko
Blvd. was also rejected. The proposal to raise the monument at Bessarabska
Square on the opposite side from the market also was met with objections,
since the statue of the poet should not be near a public market place. The
place in front of the National Museum of Art was also rejected because the
monument would not aesthetically coalesce with the mighty set of stairs in
the background. The authorities rejected several sites proposed in the Podil
district even without inspection, arguing that they were not suitable places
for a monument to Shevchenko.

In the end, the committee approved two sites — the main one along the
Petrovska Alley, behind the “bridge of kisses”, and on St. Volodymyr’s Hill,
opposite the Oleksandrivskiy Roman Catholic Church.

The place on Petrovska Alley was quite impressive due to its semantic
consonance with lines of Shevchenko’s poem Zapovit (Will). Indeed, from
this vantage point one would be able to see the vast meadows and the
Dnipro River the poet glorified in his poem. Oddly enough, the vicinity
of the Dnipro hills, which the poet also alluded to in his work, turned out
to be an argument against rather than in favor of raising a monument
there. Indeed, due to potential landslides, the monument would have
required laying a deep foundation.

This meant that larger sums of money would have to be put into building a
foundation for the monument — money that the committee did not have at its
disposal. Despite this, a decision was made to allocate 150 rubles for an
expert to study the condition of the soil at this site and draw up a cost
estimate for putting in place a foundation. In the event of a real threat of
landslide on the Petrovskiy Alley, the monument would have to be built on
St. Volodymyr’s Hill.

Nevertheless, members of jury reviewing the best design of the monument
were perplexed by such a decision. They persuaded a part of the committee
members that Petrovska Alley was not a reliable place. As a result,
Karavayevska Square was once again proposed as the main place for the
monument — a proposal that incited great opposition.

The situation with the visual aspect of the monument itself was also
complicated. A tender for the best design was announced and more than
60 sculptors presented their designs in the Kyiv City Council. None of the
designs were approved.

Then a second tender was held. This time, the jury chose Fedir Balavenskiy’s
design and awarded him with 1,000 rubles. Be that as it may, the Shevchenko
Committee was categorically against it and the design was rejected. “A
decision was made that a new tender would be announced,” one committee
member by the name of Yevhen Chykalenko wrote in his diary. “But the
condition that Shevchenko must be in national attire was not discussed. That
meant that Shevchenko would again be depicted as some semi-intellectual —
a lackey or a retired non-commissioned officer or in a top hat with a
moustache turned up and a French beard, as it was in the first tender.”

A winner was not announced even after the third tender. “Everybody wants
something supernatural,” wrote Chykalenko. “But nobody knows exactly what.
Shevchenko was so great for Ukraine that people wanted a monument to him
that would be supernatural. This is the reason none of the designs were
satisfactory.”

Given this inability to come to an amicable agreement, a decision was
made to turn to famous sculptors, in particular French sculptor Rodin, the
Italian Sciortino, the Russians Sherwood and Andreyev and the Ukrainian
Havrylko. The jury approved Sherwood’s design, while the Shevchenko
Committee preferred the design by the Italian sculptor. In the end, all
parties involved never came to an agreement.

Meanwhile, time went on. The 50th anniversary of the poet’s death in March
1911 and then his 100th birthday in March 1914 had passed. In the summer
of 1914, World War I broke out and nobody had time to think about the
monument to Shevchenko.

A bust of the great poet was eventually unveiled in Kyiv in 1919 on
Mykhailivska Square at the base of the monument to Princess Olha. The
famous poet Pavlo Tychyna then wrote: “Somebody placed your bust
between the monastery and the cathedral.” But this bust was soon after
taken down.

The first full-fledged monument to Shevchenko was unveiled in Kyiv on
March 6, 1939. The statue of Taras Shevchenko did not look over the
Dnipro as he had wished, rather at the university that bears his name. In
the end, several generations of Kyivans cannot even imagine a more
suitable place for Taras than facing the university named in his honor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.kyivweekly.com/english/article/?358
============================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"
ARTICLES ARE FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
============================================================
UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
============================================================
NOTE: For information on how to subscribe to the "Welcome to Ukraine"
magazine in English, published four times a year and/or to the Ukrainian
Folk Art magazine "Narodne Mystetstvo" in Ukrainian, published two times
a year, please contact ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net.
============================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" - SPONSORS
"Working to Secure Ukraine's Future"

1. THE BLEYZER FOUNDATION, Dr. Edilberto Segura, Chairman;
Victor Gekker, Executive Director, Kyiv, Ukraine; Washington, D.C.,
http://www.bleyzerfoundation.com.
2. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC., Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota,
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 295 7275 in Kyiv.
4. ODUM- Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson.
5. ACTION UKRAINE COALITION: Washington, D.C.,
A. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA),
Zenia Chernyk, Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President;
Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania.
B. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL,
(UACC), Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, NY
C. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President; John Kun, Washington, D.C.; Markian
Bilynskyj, Kyiv, Ukraine. Web: http://www.USUkraine.org
6. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Washington, D.C., Van
Yeutter, Cargill Inc., Interim President; Jack Reed, ADM, Interim
Vice President; Morgan Williams, Interim Secretary-Treasurer
7. ESTRON CORPORATION, Grain Export Terminal Facility &
Oilseed Crushing Plant, Ilvichevsk, Ukraine
===========================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" is an in-depth news and
analysis international newsletter, produced as a free public service by
the www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service and The Action Ukraine
Report Monitoring Service The report is distributed around the world
FREE of charge using the e-mail address: ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net.

If you would like to read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" please
send your name, country of residence, and e-mail contact information to
morganw@patriot.net. Additional names are welcome. If you do not wish
to read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" around five times per
week, let us know by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.
===========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer Investment Banking Group
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Advisor; Ukrainian Federation of America (UFA)
Coordinator, Action Ukraine Coalition (AUC)
Senior Advisor, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation (USUF)
Interim Secretary-Treasurer, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council
Publisher, Ukraine Information Website, www.ArtUkraine.com
===========================================================