Checkmate for the Queen?
Most Ukrainian politicians are anywhere but in Kyiv during this period of holiday recess. Not so Yulia Tymoshenko, who has been busily trying to put together a coalition of opposition parties to join in protests against President Kuchma in the fall. According to Tymoshenko, the ultimate goal is to force Kuchma from office, thereby triggering a pre‑term presidential election.
Tymoshenko recently told Radio Liberty that a combination of four opposition parties ‑ the Communists, the Socialists, Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine and her own bloc ‑ could, just by announcing the start of civil disobedience, bring an end to Kuchma’s reign. Probably no one ‑ including Tymoshenko – really believes that bringing about Kuchma’s departure would be that easy.
Tymoshenko has a number of problems in getting this parade ready to march. First, both the Socialists and the Communists want Kuchma gone, but they are unwilling to undertake the crusade without certain policy concessions that they are unlikely to get.
As for the Our Ukraine bloc, Yushchenko seems quite content to keep a low profile, apparently hoping to continue “opposing” Kuchma without going into active, Tymoshenko‑style opposition.
In addition to the various difficulties she will face in getting the anti‑Kuchma street theater organized, Tymoshenko has to deal with a sideshow organized by the new prosecutor general, Svyatoslav Pyskun.
The ambitious Pyskun is making active attempts to bring four former executives of Tymoshenko’s old gas company, United Energy Systems of Ukraine, into custody. The four have been in Turkey seeking political asylum for several months. Now the Turkish government has finally agreed to extradite the quartet, which includes Tymoshenko’s father‑in‑law, Hennady Tymoshenko. The four will return to face charges of tax evasion, forgery, smuggling and embezzlement.
There’s no doubting Tymoshenko’s talent as a politician. But leading the next round of anti‑Kuchma protests, watching a number of her family members go on trial, and preparing a presidential run may be more juggling than even this energetic woman can handle.President Leonid Kuchma is in Moscow for talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The visit coincides with Kuchma’s 64th birthday.
Kuchma b‑day in Moscow not all fun and games
No doubt Putin has an appropriate and enjoyable observance planned for his guest. The official business up for discussion, on the other hand, could be considerably less enjoyable. Putin will most likely push Kuchma to agree to greater participation in the Russia‑dominated European‑Asian Economic Community instead of the regional alternative that better serves Ukrainian needs, known by the acronym GUUAM. Also on the agenda: trade difficulties that have resulted in Ukraine placing a 31.7 percent duty on Russian‑made cars, and Ukraine’s independent path toward NATO membership.
However, perhaps the most important long‑term issue is putting some flesh and bones on a tentative agreement signed recently in St. Petersburg by Kuchma, Putin, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for a consortium that would undertake the exceedingly expensive job of rehabilitating Ukraine’s strategically placed but technologically ancient pipeline system. In return for the huge sums needed [some says as much as $30 billion!] to undertake the essential rehab job, Ukraine would almost certainly have to give up control of the pipelines to the consortium for a period that would probably be decades long.
Adding to the myriad other difficulties involved in getting the pipeline consortium up and running, one of the signatories to the tentative agreement, Schroeder, appears to be flagging in his campaign for re‑election. It is unclear at this point just what Schroeder’s likely successor, Edmund Stoiber, thinks of the deal. But should Stoiber be elected to replace Schroeder, the consortium process could be slowed or even grind to a halt.
Questions linger over air show disaster
A government commission headed by National Defense and Security Council chief Yevhen Marchuk has come to the conclusion that the world’s worst air show disaster occurred because of “organizational failures and pilot error.”
Based on the information that has become public after the disaster, no one would dispute that organizational failures – in particularly the lack of precaution in separating the performing aircraft from the crowd – played a major role in the accident.
The question of pilot error is cloudier. The officers in command of the SU‑27 fighter at the time of the crash were reportedly two of the most skilled pilots in the air force. The question that has not been answered is how much time these officers had to practice their skills in the months leading up to the air show, and how much preparation they had for this specific demonstration flight.
It is generally accepted that Ukrainian air force pilots get much less training time than that afforded to their Western counterparts. In fact, there are unconfirmed reports from within the air force that Ukraine’s military pilots may be getting no more than 10 percent of the time in the air that is called for by their own regulations.
Further, experienced pilots will tell you that even among aircraft of the same model, flight and handling characteristics vary greatly. The air force has indicated that the aircraft that was involved in the crash was substituted for the one originally scheduled to be flown in the demonstration. No announcement has been made explaining the switch, and it remains unclear whether it played a role in the crash. But the possibility certainly exists.
The complete investigation may show that the pilots did in fact make serious errors. Still, it would be a shame if they were held more accountable than their superiors – or ultimately the state – if an investigation discovers they were flying faulty or poorly maintained equipment, or that they were not given enough training time.
