Economist on Yanukovych's Ukraine, Europe and Russia ~ May 2012

Let's see what you make of this.  I found it to be heavily biased, making statements directly to the tune of 'you must think this way'... not that I necessarily disagree with all or any of it, I just heavily object to being ordered by a journalist to think according to their agenda.  Nonetheless... Tymoshenko's imprisonment is worthy of our scrutiny, and Yanukovych is not popular among those Ukrainians I know.  My interest is half personal.

Would Ukraine be better off with Russia, or the EU, or both?  Is Yanukovych doomed to fail if he tries to sit on the fence?  Many, many eyes are going to be on Ukraine in a month's time, for the football.  English tabloids are already poking the fires of discontent, reporting the unfinished state of sites allocated to English travelling fans.  Police there are looking to be heavily armed, and Polish fans have vowed to wreck England's training pitch.  Business as usual in the footie then...  what about more serious matters?

http://www.economist.com/node/21554187

Ukraine and Europe

Call Foul :

Viktor Yanukovych’s thuggish autocracy is heading in a dangerous direction

May 5th 2012 | from the print edition

HE WON fairly in February 2010. But since his election Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, has mauled his country’s fragile democracy and weak institutions. He has bullied the media, tampered with the judiciary, exercised arbitrary power and presided over an upsurge of corruption. To see how badly he has gone wrong, consider the show trial, imprisonment and maltreatment of Yulia Tymoshenko, his losing opponent in 2010, who is now on hunger strike.

Mr Yanukovych had no real reason to fear Ms Tymoshenko (pictured). She is no angel, and lost much of her popularity after the 2004 “orange revolution” for her erratic style and questionable business dealings. But he chose to persecute her all the same, adding fresh charges to keep her in prison for longer (see article). He has done this despite a clear message from the European Union that her release is a condition for implementing a much-delayed association agreement, which would open EU markets to Ukrainian exports.

In some ways Mr Yanukovych is using similar tactics to those of his autocratic neighbour, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, in Belarus. He has flirted alternately with Europe and Russia, in the hope of extracting concessions from both, yet yielding nothing serious to either. He wants the association agreement and he needs Western support for another IMF bail-out this summer. Should he get neither, he may turn to Moscow for help—which he would get only with unpleasant conditions.

This probably will not end well for Ukraine. The unfortunate Ukrainians find themselves not only at the mercy of their predatory ruler but also cut off from Europe. And it creates a headache for the West. The fear is that Mr Yanukovych could allow his country to fall under Russia’s sway. Vladimir Putin, who will be inaugurated as Russia’s president on May 7th, is pressing Ukraine to join a post-Soviet customs union instead of pursuing its EU deal. The Russians also want to control Ukraine’s gas-transit network, as they do Belarus’s. Such a setback for 20 years of Western efforts to bolster Ukraine’s independence is a grim prospect; EU countries should make clear to Mr Putin that it would damage relations with Russia.

Brickbats and beetroots

Fears of Russian influence must not be allowed to dictate a soft response to Mr Yanukovych’s autocratic ways. He tends to treat friendliness as weakness, pocketing the proceeds. Instead, the EU should tighten the screws on the president and his Donetsk business associates—while also finding ways to hold out hope to ordinary Ukrainians.

High-level political boycotts are a good place to start. Several heads of state, including those of Germany and the Czech Republic, are rightly refusing to attend an east European summit with Mr Yanukovych that begins in Yalta on May 11th. The EU’s political leaders (but not its soccer teams) should also boycott matches in Ukraine during the Euro 2012 football championships, which it is jointly hosting with Poland.

Off the pitch, the EU should press for fair parliamentary elections in October, sending as many observers as it can. Financial supervisors must apply money-laundering laws stringently to the huge sums flowing out of Ukraine to Austria, Britain, Cyprus and elsewhere. EU countries should withhold visas from those directly involved in the abuse of power. Yet at the same time they ought to make it easier for other Ukrainians to visit the West for study, trade and tourism. And they should do more to explain to Ukrainians the potential benefits of their association agreement, including the possibility that it might ultimately lead to EU membership. The West’s quarrel with Ukraine is with its president, not with its people.