Russians Take Over Running Yatseniuk Campaign
July 6, 2009 – 12:27 amhttp://www.proua.com/analitic/2009/07/03/164010.html
I wrote this up in Korrespondent:
http://blogs.korrespondent.net/celebrities/blog/taraskuzo/a11313
The translation is below:
The Russification of Yatseniuk’s Election Campaign
Just as US President Barack Obama was landing in Moscow for an important visit to “re-set” the button in US-Russian relations, pro-ua.com (3 July) and Ukrayinska Pravda (6 July) published similar investigative reports into the russification of political technologists running Arseniy Yatseniuk’s election campaign. Although Yatseniuk told ICTV on 6 July that “I have never worked with political technologists” this was obviously therefore untrue.
Ukrainian political technologists headed by KMA Professor Rostyslav Pawlenko have been forced out. Pawlenko is a protégée of well known KMA Professor Olexiy Haran and worked as head of the analytical service in the presidential secretariat from 2005-2007. I knew him when he worked on Viktor Yushchenko’s 2004 election campaign and we spoke together at a conference on Ukraine in Vienna that year. Pawlenko has returned to the presidential secretariat.
Pawlenko’s first foray into election consultancy was working for the Winter Crop Generation (KOP) in 2002, the first political project financed by Viktor Pinchuk with the aim of taking votes away from Viktor Yushchenko’s newly established Our Ukraine. Two leading figures in KOP were Valeriy Khoroshkovsky, an ally of Inter and gas intermediary RosUkrEnergo owner Dmytro Firtash, and Inna Boguslovska, a fierce critic of Yulia Tymoshenko who was elected to parliament in 2007 by the Party of Regions. In the 2006 elections Boguslovska had campaigned in a second failed Pinchuk project, Viche. Last month Boguslovska resigned from the Party of Regions although she refused to resign her seat that had been won in a proportional system by the party, not by the individual.
Pro-ua.com reported that, “?????? ??? ???????? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????????? ???????, ?????????????? ???????? ??????? ???????? ???????”. The headquarters of Front for Change is in the Kyiv district of Podil with the Front occupying the fourth floor of a building and the Russian technologists occupying the fifth.
The most striking revelation is that the candidate with the allegedly “new face” of the “younger generation” is neither a new face or representative of young Ukrainians. In fact, the russification of Yatseniuk’s election campaign shows to what degree he not learnt lessons from the past.
Of the three main presidential candidates – Yulia Tymoshenko, Yatseniuk and Viktor Yanukovych – only Yatseniuk is using Russian political technologists. Yanukovych and the Party of Regions changed their Russian political technologists for Americans in autumn 2005. The Tymoshenko bloc, Yushchenko and Our Ukraine have always used Western political consultants.
The Russian political technologists heading Yatseniuk’s campaign produced the black propaganda of Yanukovych’s 2004 campaign, such as alleging that Yushchenko believed Ukrainians were divided into “Three Types” (see poster). One of the leaders of the Russian group of consultants is Vladimir Granovsky who worked in the underground Yanukovych campaign in 2004 headed by Andriy Kluyev which produced the black propaganda and dirty tricks. Granovsky is thought to be behind the idea of Ukraine divided into “Three Types”.
Yatseniuk was no where to be seen in the Orange Revolution and never stood on the Maidan (even Nikolai Azarov sneaked on to the Maidan stage with the help of Petro Poroshenko). Searching Google Images you will not find a single photograph of Yatseniuk during the Orange Revolution. Pinchuk, the main financier of Yatseniuk’s campaign, and Volodymyr Lytvyn, who was parliamentary speaker in 2004, both mingled with the Orange Revolution crowds. But, Yatseniuk had obviously more important things to do than give his support to protesting for their rights.
Using Russian political technologists behind the worst and most crude aspects of the black propaganda in the 2004 elections casts a dark light over Yatseniuk. Although he is often seen as Yushchenko’s protégée he would not seem to hold personal connections with the Orange Revolution.
Yushchenko and Yatseniuk are cut from the same cloth in both being very reluctant revolutionaries. If Yushchenko had not been removed as prime minister in April 2001 he would have faithfully served President Leonid Kuchma to the end of his term, even seeking to be endorsed as his “successor”. Throughout the anti-Kuchma protests of 2000-2003 Yushchenko either condemned them (as in the famous February 2001 open letter signed with Kuchma and speaker Ivan Pluishch) or wavered between supporting them or negotiating a deal with Kuchma whereby he could return as prime minister.
Yushchenko’s hesitancy as a “revolutionary” has been clear throughout his presidency. Yatseniuk’s similar disposition and career background would indicate that he would be little different if elected president. Certainly he would be no “revolutionary” seeking “change” and most definetly no “Ukrainian Obama”. A Ukrainian media consultant told me, “? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ??????. ????????, ??? ?? ??????”.
Pro-ua.com reported that attempts by Yatseniuk to imitate Obama’s election campaign, such as seeking donations from below via the internet, failed and have been closed. The influence of Russian political technologists have been seen in the black and brown-coloured billboards now seen throughout Kyiv that have been criticised by Ukrainian election and advertising specialists. Pro-ua.com wondered if the Russian political technologists “??? ?? ????? ? ??????, ??? ?? ????? ??????????? ????????, ? ?????? ? ?????? ???????”.
The russification of Yatseniuk’s election campaign sheds light on two other aspects.
Firstly, the financing of his campaign of which Pinchuk is now the largest contributor. According to pro-ua.com and Ukrayinska Pravda, Pinchuk was behind the russification of Yatseniuk’s campaign.
Yatseniuk has received a large amount of free television time on Ukraine’s most popular television channel, Inter. Granovsky is a member of Inter’s ruling board of directors and an influential “ideologue” on the channel. Inter channel owner Firtash, who is one of the owners of the corrupt RosUkrEnergo gas intermediary, has provided indirect support to Yatseniuk through providing free access to Inter. Pinchyuk’s finances and Firtash’s involvement through Inter have led to Yatseniuk being described as either a “Television Project” or a “Big Business Project”.
Secondly, Pinchuk’s preference for using Russian election and political consultants over Ukrainian or Western sheds light on his disposition and ideological orientation as well. What happened to the “pro-Western” image that Pinchuk has been cultivating through Yalta European Strategy and most recently in his financial contributions to the Brookings Institution and Institute for International Economics in Washington DC?
Who then is the “pro-Russian” candidate in the January 2010 elections? If we look at who is using Russian political technologists it is Yatseniuk.
18 Responses to “Russians Take Over Running Yatseniuk Campaign”
And more on who is running Yatseniuk’s campaign:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/7/6/97858.htm
By Taras Kuzio on Jul 7, 2009
Well, apparently at one time, Nemtsov helped Yushchenko on his campaign.
Plus – this is an article, which Foreign Notes linked to, about the difference between media in Ukraine and Russia – and how Russian media stars are fleeing to Ukraine for freedom.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b227a87a-6c20-11de-9320-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=a712eb94-dc2b-11da-890d-0000779e2340.html
By elmer on Jul 11, 2009
Nemtsov was pure decoration. Plus he is not a political technologist. The ones running Yatseniuk’s campaign are political technologist dirty tricksters.
By Taras on Jul 11, 2009
The problem with Ukraine is – Ukrainians.
Seems that the “political elite” can’t find any doctors in Ukraine – so Yanukovych and the rest of the scum go to Spain or other countries for their medical treatments.
Yanukovych has Italian workers working on his huge mansion, Mezhihirya.
Yatseniuk, who proclaims that he wants Ukraine to come up to European standards, turns to Russia for “politechnologists.”
Isn’t that “interesting.”
By elmer on Jul 13, 2009
But what does the article say? In English?
By anon on Jul 15, 2009
Yats didn’t appear on the Maiden but wasn’t Yats running the National Bank as its vice. At least by staying away he’d have been conforming to Western standards where the head of national bank is supposed to stay out of politics.(besides wasn’t he too busy making sure the currency didn’t collapse?)
“Who then is the “pro-Russian” candidate in the January 2010 elections?” None of the candidates are pro-Russia they’re just pro getting themselves elected. The only question remains what they’re prepared to stand for even if at the risk of not being elected. With Tym the answer’s nothing – there’s nothing, no previous commitment or stand she wouldn’t let go of if it comes between her and the Presidency. With Yats I can’t see how anyone can tell.
I don’t see anything wrong with not being a revolutionary either. If Yush tried to change things within the system and only opposed it when he saw it wasn’t possible then fair enough. Having the demeanour of a revolutionary didn’t mean actually making any siginificant (or even small) changes once she came to power herself.
By anon on Jul 15, 2009
“Searching Google Images you will not find a single photograph of Yatseniuk during the Orange Revolution.”
And why is that a bad thing?
Personally, I think that Yush’s fixation on historical controversies at at time when deaths in Ukraine exceed births by about 1000 per day hasn’t been helpful to, you know, Ukrainians.
By rkka on Jul 16, 2009
Who is paying for Yatseniuk’s campaign? Elections are not cheap and Ukraine’s two round Presidential voting system only adds to the costs. And as they say there is no such thing as a free lunch. Yatseniuk’s Y-Front for change is not a people’s movement. He after all does not stand for any real change or difference to his mentor Yushchenko. Yes a new face but same old tried and failed policies of Our Ukraine.
Yatseniuk does not instill confidence or leadership. Just what is his vision for Ukraine? Does he support Ukraine embracing a European democratic parliamentary system or a return to Presidential autocracy?
Could it be that his HQ is close to the US ambassador’s home. The Russian technologies are just political mercenaries. Pay the right price and you can buy whoever serves your purpose.
Yatseniuk needs to win support in the East and more importantly stop Yushchenko from running in order to have a real chance of success.
As long as Y-Front is seen to adopt Yushchenko’s policies Yatseniuk will never break free and take the lead. he will always be seen as the fall back position for US interests not Ukraine’s best interest.
By Y-Front on Jul 16, 2009
Yatseniuk could have taken an hour after work and strolled through the Orange Revolution crowds, just out of curiosity if nothing else. But, he did not. Viktor Pinchuk runs a major Ukrainian business but took time out to walk through the crowds. Yuriy Lytvyn was running parliament but he found time. Why did not Yatseniuk? Did he simply not have any pull towards the millions on the maidan? Thousands came from abroad to stand on the maidan, including myself, and it felt great.
Pinchuk is the main financier of Y-Front election campaign. This is not a secret. The Ukrainian media have also listed smaller donations from Akhmetov (Systems Capital Management) and Taruta (Industrial Union of Donbas). Firtash (RosUkrEnergo) has provided resources rather than cash – free access to Ukraine’s most popular TV channel, Inter.
By Taras Kuzio on Jul 16, 2009
How would anyone know that he didn’t drop by amongst all those millions. He wasn’t that well known then. Ok I’m picking nits he does seem a bit of calculating cold fish to me.
By anon on Jul 16, 2009
As for money they’ve all got to get it from somewhere. Where’s Tym’s come from then?
By anon on Jul 16, 2009
From oligarchs like Zhevago who is a BYuT supporter. Maybe also from Haydiuk. But, thats not the point. We all know oligarchs are in each faction, including in Our Ukraine (Kolomoysky, Firtash). But, is not Yatseniuk claiming he is “different”?
In the orange revolution the role of oligarch money is still to be researched. From my knowledge Haydiuk and Kolomoysky at the very least gave funding. Berezovsky also.
By Taras Kuzio on Jul 17, 2009
1. True regarding the fact he’s claiming he’s different but at the moment while Tym’s oligarch support seems evident, accusations coming from Tym’s mouth or known supporters or sources from the Pres secretariat aren’t readily believed for good reason. You must know that what you say in this regard is immediately seen as coming from a partisan. Still aren’t people asking where he got the money for the billboards?
(By the way if he’s generally seen as a dead duck where would the Pres be able to raise money? From funds stashed away from better times? At least he wouldn’t be owing anymore.)
2. As for the oligarch funding of the OR, on the one hand if people hadn’t believed and turned a blind eye to such things (plus as another example the poisoning which the evidence for seems really shaky) there could never have been the necessary enthusiam and support but on the other it was a setup for major problems and disappointments afterwards. It looks a repeat story with Yats but taking the OR as an analogy it doesn’t show that he wouldn’t be an improvement even if a disappointment for his supporters. Despite everything it was still better Yanuk hadn’t won in 2004.
By anon on Jul 18, 2009
All of this points out the desparate need for campaign finance reform in Ukraine, so that oligarchs can’t buy elections.
And for the elimination of “party lists.”
And for the elimination of parliamentary immunity.
By elmer on Jul 18, 2009
Every democracy has parliamentary immunity. Removing it is populist and irrelevant to dealing with members corruption.
Oligarchs and businessmen will only not want to enter parliament if business and politics is separated. That will require an amnesty. The other alternative of bndits to prison was not actioned and is now not going to ever happen. In addition, the courts are completely corrupt and judges can be bribed to reach any verdict. Akhmetov will not want to enter parliament after an anmesty.
Coupled with an amnesty there needs to be a complete radical shake up of the courts,SBU, prosecutors office and Interior Ministry.You cannot expect rule of law if you choose – like Yushchenko – prosecutors such as Piskun and Medvedko who are dinosaurs.
The question of party financing requires dealing with the shadow economy as this money is in the form of slosh cash. It is also complicated as in Western democracies big business gives money to parties but transparently.
By Taras on Jul 18, 2009
Taras, do they have COMPLETE immunity?
For example, in the US, members of Congress cannot be arrested for legislative activity.
However, there is no person in Congress that has immunity for committing a crime. Not even the President of the US has immunity.
For example, Congressman Jefferson was investigated and arrested for bribery. He had stashed about $90,000 in his refrigerator at home. He’s not the only example.
And, as President Clinton found out, an ordinary citizen of the US, Paula Jones, was permitted to proceed with her CIVIL lawsuit against him while he was President, for activities stemming from his days as governor of Arkansas.
Big business in the US is not permitted to contribute directly to individual campaigns. And there is a limit on the dollar amount which individuals can contribute.
All of those contributions are tracked, and reports are required to be filed, and are available for PUBLIC inspection.
Thus, one would not have to guess “who is funding Yatseniuk”?
And does, or will, Yatseniuk, owe any favors to his contributors?
And – in Western democracies, representatives to legislative bodies are not elected through “party lists.”
There is no amnesty required in Ukraine. Poroshenko, Pinchuk and others are not in Parliament.
There is only reform that’s required in Ukraine.
Otherwise, as Yushchenko said – “corruption is killing the country.”
Look at the Euro 2012 fiasco – Ukrainians learned very, very quickly how to STEAL. But when it comes to actually accomplishing something – chimps could do better.
Tymoshenko’s challenge was – “let’s form the best government in the world.”
What a joke!!!!!
By elmer on Jul 18, 2009
I think as well it wasn’t possible to put the bandits in prison and isn’t because of there’s no judicial system but how exactly would an ammensty be given? Who to, for what and by whom? Especially the last: who’s clean enough and has the authority to give an amnesty.
I agree with everything else especially that Yush didn’t even attempt to do anything about the prosecutor’s office.
But you don’t believe for a minute that Tymoshenko would do anything of what you said do you? She’s all for keeping the present system so long as she can manage it and when she can’t she won’t be there any longer.
By anon on Jul 19, 2009
The issue of parliamentary immunity has led to a jerk like Lozinsky killing an innnocent man who lived with his mother. And Lozinsky obviously lied about it. Because he feels like a “master of the region,” and because he “owns” the cops and the judges.
It’s not a new issue. Here is an article which traces the removal of parliamentary immunity for individuals, the first one being Stepan Chmara:
http://novynar.com.ua/analytics/government/75560
The article points out that the very first one was under the “leadership” of Sandro Moroz – and the commies were trying to get rid of a political opponent.
That one was in 1990, before independence.
The first one in independent Ukraine to have his immunity removed was Yefim Zviahilsky, who managed to escape from the confines of Ukraine. Zviahilsky is the same tub of lard who recently figured in the horrible coal mine explosions in Ukraine as the Owner – no, wait, he’s not the owner – no, wait, he is the owner – no, wait, noone knows who owns the mines that explode, but Zviahilsky and others manage to collect money from the coal mines.
Then, in 1999, it was Paul Lazarenko, who got too big for his britches. But he managed to leave with more than $100 million dollars, and ended up in California buying Eddie Murphy’s mansion, the one with 5 swimming pools. Thank you, people of Ukraine, for contributing to the real estate market of California, and to the hedonistic life style of Lazarenko.
Lazarenko screamed the whole time that he was escaping “political persecution” in Ukraine. Until he was arrested and convicted in a San Francisco federal court for money laundering, a violation of US laws. Thank you, people of Ukraine, for improving the lives of Lazarenko’s lawyers, who defended him for BIG MONEY. Lazarenko’s money schemes were used by the US Dept of Justice as a primer for terrorist financing techniques. He had accounts all over the world, which he shifted around. The court’s opinions lay it all out.
Next, in 2000, was Victor Zherdytsky, who was arrested by German police. Then there was Michael Ahafanov, who wound up dying in a hospital – according to the official version.
The majority of those who had immunity removed wound up outside the borders of Ukraine.
Amnesty would only promote the current situation.
I think the old saying “sink or swim” applies.
As Dr. Phil would say – “how’s that corruption and immunity working for y’all”?
It’s not – except for a few “political elite.”
18 years of a horrifying, putrid “political elite” in Ukraine is enough.
By elmer on Jul 19, 2009