For the first time in years, Ukrainians have to watch TV to know what’s going on. The four major TV channels have, at least for now, eased their censorship of the news to report objectively about Kyiv’s massive protests. They are also owned by the country’s richest men, acting as weathervanes for which way the political winds are blowing.
Since Viktor
Yanukovych’s election in 2010, the Inter, ICTV, 1+1 and Ukraiina TV stations
have ensured only positive coverage of the president on their newsrooms. So, it
surprised no one when they ignored the demonstrations that broke out Nov. 21
after the government’s about-face on the European association agreement. When
Yanukovych slammed the door on Europe in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Nov. 28-29, oligarchic
TV also reported it loyally, without criticism, even on channels whose owners
supported the European pivot.
But the resulting
fissures in Ukraine’s political class started visibly cracking after the Nov.
30 bloody early-morning crackdown in Independence Square.
First, Yanukovych’s
chief of staff, Serhiy Lyoochkin reportedly resigned.
Then, as thousands more protesters gathered by St. Michael’s
monastery, Segodnya – a tabloid
belonging to Ukraine’s leading magnate, Rinat Akhmetov — announced the mass
rally on Dec. 1.
That night, Inter, which Lyovochkin controls with oligarch
Dmytro Firtash, devoted its entire nightly news programs to the crackdown and
protests, encouraging viewers to attend the Sunday rally.
Channel 1+1, owned by Igor Kolomoisky, Ukraine’s third most
wealthy man, did the same.
None of that could have happened without approval from the owners.
The extraordinary turn of events mirrored what happened in
2004. When the major TV outlets ended political censorship and began covering
the Orange Revolution, it signaled that the bets most oligarchs had placed on
Yanukovych’s election were off. They were watching and waiting to back whoever
was most likely to win.
Something similar seems to be happening now. The Nov. 30 TV
broadcasts surely contributed to Dec. 1’s unprecedented turnout. The good
journalism that continues on the four major channels throughout this last week
suggests that their owners are again watching and waiting.
“By providing an information platform for
the opposition, they are buying insurance for themselves for the future,”
Volodymyr Fesenko, an independent Ukrainian analyst, told Reuters.
Until recently, these fabulously wealthy men (Yulia
Tymoshenko, the only woman who competed with them as an equal, is now in prison)
had little motive to oppose Yanukovych. According to Korrespondent.net, the net
worth of the top five all doubled in 2010. If they grumbled about the president
and his family’s greed in demanding a share – well, who were they to talk?
Besides, they kept getting richer. If in 2009, the last year
of Orange rule, the top five oligarch’s total assets amounted to nearly $17
billion, the first year of Yanukovych’s presidency more than doubled that
amount to $36 billion and 2011 brought a windfall of $47 billion – much of it accruing
to Akhmetov.
More recently, though, most of the old rich have been
getting poorer while Yanukovych’s family keeps getting richer. Ukraine’s newest
oligarch, Serhiy Kurchenko, appeared from nowhere with a $2.4 billion fortune
reputedly tied to the “family” lopping off pieces of the old oligarch’s wealth.
The economic pie keeps shrinking, too. In 2012, the top
five’s total net worth fell to $31 billion and has remained around there this
year. That’s a lot more than in 2009. Even Akhmetov, with a reported $18.3
billion in assets in 2013, is pretty much where he was three years ago.
Such changes in fortune have prompted resentments that are
now coinciding with Yanukovych dashing the European hopes not only of the
people on the streets but also the pro-European super-rich said to include Viktor
Pinchuk, Firtash and Kolomoisky. Their motives, at least in part, are to
enforce the rule of law, so that their properties are protected. But they also
want legitimacy.
Ironically,
the very un-European crackdown on Nov. 30 and the massive show of people power
the next day may also prompt other oligarchs to think twice. If brutal
authoritarianism is the only way for Yanukovych to force Ukrainians to follow
him to Russia, the West could punish his supporters with sanctions. Regardless
of geopolitical orientation, they all keep their money, own real estate and
actually live in the West. Sanctions in their comfort zones would be very
painful.
Whatever
the oligarch’s motives for lifting censorship on their channels, it changed the
equation. When the Dec. 1 turnout exceeded anyone’s wildest expectations,
Pinchuk’s ICTV also started covering the protests as did Akhmetov’s Ukraiina
channel. Independent TV monitors reported that the four major channels’
treatment of the protests on Dec. 1 was remarkable for its objectivity.
It also
means that, for now at least, their owners don’t fear Yanukovych like they once
did. Perhaps that’s because he appeared weak in Vilnius. The joint statement by
Ukraine’s previous three presidents supporting the protests also signaled a
weakening of fear. But the elites aren’t quite ready to abandon Yanukovych just
yet (if ever).
The exit of
five deputies associated with Lyovochkin-Firtash from the Party of Regions’
faction in parliament has not been followed by any other MPs and Lyovochkin
remains on the job, his resignation rejected. But his wife, the fashion
designer Zinaida Lihacheva, continues posting support for the protesters on her
Facebook page.
Ukraiinska Pravda journalist Serhiy
Leshchenko thinks that the way out of Ukraine’s crisis is through Akhmetov. Ukraine’s
richest man, with a known net worth of $18 billion, has been Yanukovych’s
sponsor for years. He is also said to control 30 to 50 deputies in the Party of
Regions faction, all of whom opposed Monday’s no confidence vote in the
government.
“That means he continues to support
Yanukovich’s policies,” Leshchenko wrote on his blog this week, “including the
bloody crackdown.”
The West
could persuade Akhmetov to press the president towards negotiations. After all,
Leshchenko argues, he lives in London and is much more vulnerable to Western
sanctions – and blandishments — than Yanukovich. Supporters of the Kyiv protests announced
plans to protest at his $220 million apartment on London on Saturday.
“If
Akhmetov doesn’t stop Yanukovych,” wrote Leshchenko on his blog, “then he will
share responsibility with him.”
With
unconfirmed reports on Dec. 6 that Yanukovich had promised Russian President
Vladimir Putin that Ukraine would join the Customs Union, the stakes grow even
higher.
As events
develop, perhaps the best way to know which way the political winds are blowing
in the most expensive piece of real estate on earth will be to watch the news
on the Ukraiina channel. If it’s objective and honest, it probably means that the
owner is still watching and waiting.
Mary Mycio is a Kyiv Post contributor and author. Her most recent book is “Doing Bizness: A Nuclear Thriller.”
