Blue &Yellow: Politics and Economics in Ukraine

KIEV, November 19 (Itar-Tass) - The probe conducted by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) is "a political contract and a fake," the ad hoc investigation commission of Verkhovnaya Rada (parliament) stated on Tuesday.

The lawmakers from the commission on ascertaining facts of sale of Ukrainian military equipment in violation of the country's legislation and international norms, said the objective of the SBU's probe was to "hide the criminal actions and corruption of individuals from (President Viktor) Yushchenko's closest milieu."

"The SBU's actions are aimed at deliberate misinformation of the Ukrainian citizens," the commission said.

A preliminary report by the commission is due shortly. The parliamentarians are planning to present "new evidence and a legal and political evaluation of the actions by the ruling regime."

The commission also demanded "an immediate report by acting SBU chief Nalivaichenko in the parliament and his personal responsibility for the gross violations of the Constitution and the Ukrainian law.

Lawmakers said they had repeatedly - and unsuccessfully - invited Nalivaichenko to supply the information necessary for their probe. "But during the period of the commission's work, we have not received a single answer to our inquires, nor have we met with the SBU leadership at our sessions," they claimed.

Earlier on Tuesday, head of the ad hoc commission Valery Konovalyuk accused the SBU of illegal arms sales to Georgia, accompanied by "serious financial violations,' which lost the state budget hundreds of million dollars."

On November, 12, the SBU opened a criminal case over the divulging of confidential information, following the publication on the Internet of a copy of the letter by Ukrspetsexport, the state weapons exporting company, together with Konovalyuk's comments on the document. Konovalyuk then was summoned for interrogation at the SBU.

Konovalyuk earlier stated that Ukraine was selling armaments to Georgia even after the conflict in South Ossetia in August, and that it continues to sell, while the proceeds from arms sales do not end up in the budget. According to the commission's information, President Viktor Yushchenko is one the persons behind the supplies.

In October, director of the department for military security issues under Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council Sergei Khimchenko said Kiev would continue to sell armaments to Georgia, in accordance with concluded contracts.

Ukraine mostly supplies to Georgia Soviet-era armaments, except for the Shkval combat module. Arms sales to Georgia account for 7 percent of all Ukraine's weapons exports, Khimchenko said.

He denied Ukraine's supplying weapons to Georgia during its aggression against South Ossetia, dismissing the allegations that weapons were disguised as humanitarian aid.

Khimchenko also denied the reports that Ukrainian military specialists had taken part in the fighting on Georgia's side.

There were 17 specialists servicing military equipment at that time (in August), which belonged to Ukrainian companies. "However when hostilities began, they all were evacuated to Ukraine on August 7-13," the director said.

Konovalyuk asserts that Ukraine has sold missile air defense systems to the detriment of its defense capability.

"Our data prove that over the past four years virtually all weapons were sold at understated prices. For example, a Kalashnikov assault rifle was sold for 547 hrivnas (one U.S. dollar buys approximately 5.6 hrivnas), a T-72 tank for 240,000-250,000 hrivnas," Konovalyuk said.

"According to our estimates, arms exports to Georgia considerably exceeded this country's defense demands. This concerns offensive weapons such as Pion, Grad and Shkval systems. We bear moral responsibility for the fact that Ukrainian weapons, delivered to the Caucasus, resulted in the death of civilians and Russian peacekeepers," he said.

Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council denied that arms supplies to Georgia were illegal.

"Georgia was not and is not under sanctions or embargo of the U.N. Security Council, the OSCE, the European Union or other international organizations," the council said.

The council said Ukraine cooperated with Georgia "absolutely transparently" by providing all information about its arms exports to the U.N. Register and other international agencies, and that Konovalyuk's assertions that the Ukrainian armaments had been sold to Georgia underpriced were "unprofessional and subjective".

Konovalyuk insisted that over the last three years Ukraine had sold two billion U.S. dollars worth of arms, while only 840 million U.S. dollars reached the state budget.

"The commission has received information from the state treasury, which clearly indicates that a great deal of the money Ukraine should have received from the sale of arms ended up outside the state budget and the Defense Ministry," he said.

The director general of the Ukrspetsexport weapons trading company Sergei Bondarchuk said his country had supplied mainly defense systems to Georgia.

"As for Georgia, the supplies mostly related to defense, not assault," Bondarchuk said, adding, "Grads (salvo systems) wee not supplied."

Kiev also supplied to Georgia radio electronic warfare systems, radars and air defense equipment.

Commission Discovers Facts Proving Ukrainian Arms Supplies To Georgia

TSKHINVALI, November 3 (Itar-Tass) -- Ukraine's ad hoc commission investigating arms supplies to Georgia has discovered facts in South Ossetia that confirm Ukrainian arms supplies to Georgia.

"We have received information and facts we need for our investigation. We have seen here Ukrainian hardware left by the Georgian army and received information about Ukrainian specialists who were involved in combat actions," the head of the commission, Valery Konovalyuk, said on Monday.

"In order to complete the investigation, the commission also needs information from the Georgian side, but Georgia has not provided us with the necessary information about Ukrainian arms supplies before and during the conflict," Konovalyuk said.

He said Ukraine continued to supply military hardware and ammunition to Georgia.

"The military contract with Georgia remains in force. We know of tanks, artillery systems and ammunition supplied to Georgia. The investigation commission will submit all available data to the parliament and demand a moratorium on arms supplies to Georgia," the official said.

"The document gathered by the investigation commission will be presented to law enforcement agencies and will help bring to justice all those who are responsible for illegal arms supplies used against peacekeepers and civilians," Konovalyuk said.

Over the last three years Ukraine has sold two billion U.S. dollars worth of arms, while only 840 million U.S. dollars reached the state budget, he said.

"The commission has received information from the state treasury, which clearly indicates that a great deal of the money Ukraine should have received from the sale of arms ended up outside the state budget and the Defence Ministry," he said.

However Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council denied that arms supplies to Georgia were illegal.

"Georgia was not and is not under sanctions or embargo of the U.N. Security Council, the OSCE, the European Union or other international organisations," the council said.

"Ukraine acts in accordance with its national interests, subordinating its policy both to the norms of certain ethics and international law," it said.

The council said Ukraine cooperated with Georgia "absolutely transparently" by providing all information about its arms exports to the U.N. Register and other international agencies.

"Ukraine has the most up-to-date and effective arms export control system. It was created with the methodological and technical assistance of the European Union and was adapted to its standards," the council said. 

In a little over a month Ukraine is supposed to have early Rada election (14 December), but its very uncertain if this will take place. Wih no money available for the election, the election will either be postponed until January or Yushchenko may cancel his decree. DT has an interesting piece on the changing attiude toward the early election by Regions, Our Ukraine, and members of the presidential secretariat 

Bankova [street in downtown Kyiv, seat of the Presidential Secretariat] is evidently revising its initial plans. Yushchenko keeps insisting on the early election, but his insistence is losing resolve. The Premier is so far making the most of her trump cards – her influence on courts and control over the central budget. The presidential decree [on the parliament’s dissolution and the preterm election] is still in court limbo and the Central Election Commission is still waiting for money to launch the election campaign. It is already clear to everyone that the election will not take place this year. But will it do Yushchenko any good next year? His initial aim – to get rid of Tymoshenko – makes no sense now. He took this aim in September, but under the present circumstances the country will get a new government in late spring at the earliest – just a couple of weeks ahead of the presidential race.

Besides, Yushchenko is beginning to see the approaching economic danger. Those who have the privilege of contacting him are still doubtful whether he realizes the hugeness of the looming threat. He simply turned a blind eye to it until the nosedive of the national currency drew him from his idées fixes – the NATO Membership Action Plan, the Holodomor [international recognition of the Great Famine of 1932-1933], and the early election. Yushchenko must have come to realize that in the coming months the country can not remain without the parliament and government and that Tymoshenko’s premiership might eventually earn him good political fortune as all impacts of the crisis could be blamed on her.

Yushchenko’s “alter ego” Baloha [chief of the Presidential Secretariat.] is not interested in the early election, either. He sees that his political party [Yedyniy Tsentr (United Center) composed of renegade members of the pro-presidential bloc Our Ukraine and other rightist and centrist parties] stands no chance of entering the new parliament. Seeing that the OU is on the verge of political death, its “flexible” members refuse to ally with Baloha’s party in an election bloc and even demand guarantees from Yushchenko that after the election he will not force them to join the Regions Party in a new coalition.

The latest surveys show that the pro-presidential political force has meager electoral chances. Baloha does not want to be left holding the bag after his political project fails and so has to restrain his ardor.

Yushchenko and his confidants keep declaring their determination to follow through, but their serious doubts as to the expediency of their venture are already visible.

The Regions Party is no longer enthusiastic about the election race. Most of its members, who hated to ally with Tymoshenko, regarded the early election as the only reasonable alternative to such an alliance, but now this “hard choice” looks petty vis-à-vis a far more serious problem: the party’s sponsors are running out of money and are reluctant to invest in the election campaign. One of them said recently, “The robbed don’t perform charities.” They are not even ready to continue paying the regular “party tithe.” Why should they sponsor Yushchenko’s election campaign?