The head of the Euro-2012 Ukraine local organising committee Markiyan Lubkivskyi called Ukraine’s preparation for the soccer “the peculiar rehearsal of Ukraine’s entering to the EU”. “By preparation for the soccer we have reached new standards not only in the infrastructure – modern stadiums, airports, hotels, but in the life of common people”, he said to French journalists.
It would be great, if was a true. Unfortunately, some new stadiums and airports, few repaired highways absolutely did not change this country and did not bring any European standards in the life of its people. In contrary, the preparation for the Euro-2012 has shown numerous Ukraine’s defects, incompatible with real European integration.
The most anti-European things were going in the sphere of public procurements. Reportedly Ukraine has spent about 7,5 bln euros for the preparation for the soccer, and 90% of the sum is public finances. The most of these money have been spent by companies  often owned by officials or their parthners, without any competition. It were lobbied and adopted special provisions in the law on public procurement, allowed to conduct so called “tenders with one participant” when comes about preparations for the Euro-2012. Simply saying, the high ranking officials  could give a contracts for  any companies they want and define prices under these contracts.  In such manner great space for the corruption and stealing public money  was created. So it is not surprise that, for example,  reconstruction of the  Olympic stadium in Kyiv has appeared more expensive than construction of the Allianz arena in Munich, and budget funding for the stadium was permanently increasing during last years. Such tricks dominated everywhere.
It need to remind that public procurements in Ukraine was a subject of special emphasis of the EU for the last years. But its consistent pressure to the Ukrainian authority did not give any positive results. Public procurements remain one of the most corrupt sphere, and preparation for the Euro-2012 has it demonstrated clearly. The first winners of the Euro-2012 became known far before its start whistle – those in Ukraine who, using their offices, have gotten super-profits from the soccer’s budget funding.
The first loser is Ukrainian society. It has paid excessive price for the Euro-2012 in the time, when schools and clinics are closed because of lack of public financing, and for more and more people is difficult to make both ends meet. But not only people have suffered. Hundreds or even thousands stray dogs were killed by barbaric ways in the Ukrainian cities to “clean” it before the soccer.
The big problems remain with accommodation for the foreign fans. There is  lack of hotels and hostels. It is result of continuing suppression of the small and medium business and poor business climate in Ukraine at all. The situation with this was only worsening during years of the preparation for the Euro-2012.
Did not disappear corruption at the border. There are serious questions regarding ability of the Ukrainian border guards and customs officials to manage with considerable visitors’ flows.
Does all above mentioned look like rehearsal of Ukraine’s entering to the EU?

The EU-Ukraine association agreement scheduled for initialling on March, 30. There are two news concerned with this event: good and bad.

The good one it that the association agreement will be ready for signing. Difficult and sometimes dramatic negotiations, lasted four and half years, will be resulted in ready text.

The bad one is that signing will not happen. EU makes it conditional upon Ukraine’s progress in democracy, rule of law, respect of human rights. Present Ukrainian authority does not show any intensions to do this. The EU also demands to release former premier-minister Yulia Tymoshenko and former interior minister Yuriy Lutsenko and give them possibility take part in the next parliamentary elections. It seems like quite fantastic scenario as well.

During last years the EU-Ukraine relations were revolving around the negotiations on association agreement. In particular, the EU considered the agreement’s prospects like instrument to keep Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovich from undemocratic steps. From his side Mr Yanukovich posed the negotiations like evidence of Ukraine’s motion toward the EU and his own pro-European aspirations.

Now everything is changed. For the EU there is no sense anymore to use the association agreement as argument. As a matter of fact it did not bring any success on the stage of negotiation, but at least there were some hopes or illusions before. Now it is disappeared finally.

For president Yanukovich next initialling will be the last opportunity for pro-European hypocritical rhetoric. Undoubtedly, his administration will try to pose this event like great Eurointegration success, although actually it is pure technical step.

So about what the EU and Ukraine will be speaking after March, 30? Seems everything has been said before and emptiness is coming to their relations. The question is for how long. The next determinative event will be Ukrainian parliamentary elections, scheduled for October. Ukraine can come back to European track upon two conditions. First, if the elections will be free and fair. Second, if pro-European parties will obtain majority in Verkhovna Rada.

Chairperson of the Institute of Ukrainian Policy Kost Bondarenko in his article Ukraine: Isolation is not the way forward (EurActiv, November,8) argues that Tymoshenko trial is purely criminal case without any politics. He writes that for the EU would be a mistake to isolate Ukraine because of imprisonment of former premier and opposition leader.

It is typical example of Ukrainian official propaganda. Mr. Bondarenko is well known as its mouthpiece.

I would like to make just few remarks.

First of all, it is no sense to discuss about legal details of Tymoshenko trial. It is like to discuss about political prisoners in Belarus – are they guilty or not? It is quite clear that Tymoshenko trial is politically motivated. Her imprisonment is part of president Yanukovych’s strategy on cleaning of Ukrainian political field before future parliamentary and presidential elections – to provide himself long and happy ruling. Europe’s estimations of this trial are impartial and vast majority of the Ukrainians have the same vision.

Of course, isolation is not way forward. However, this appeal should be addressed to Mr. Yanukovych, not to the EU. Tymoshenko trial just became a catalyzer for present problems, but not only reason of them. There is systematic strengthening of the authoritarianism in Ukraine, suppression of democracy and freedoms during last one and half year. There are unprecedented violations of human rights and rule of law. There are clear intentions to adopt manipulative electoral legislation for the next parliamentary elections which would provide victorious results for Yanukovich’s Party of region. And, indeed, there are not real economic reforms in Ukraine – there are legislative actions in the interests of business-groups allied with Yanukovych’s regime.

It is not way to the European future, but path to the dictatorship. There are big doubts that possible conclusion of the negotiations on Association agreement ( even if the EU would close its eyes on Tymoshenko trial) could be real lever to influence on Ukrainian authority. Seems Mr. Yanukovych has made his choice and is not going to stop.

What the EU should do now or what it can do? It looks like questions without ready answers for the moment. What is clear – Europe really should not isolate Ukraine. In the same time, the EU should definitely distinquish between Ukraine and Mr Yanukovych. Like in the case with Belarus’ and Mr. Lukashenko.

About 52% Ukrainian citizens wish Ukraine to join European Union accordingly to recent poll, conducted by Razumkov center. If they would need to choose between the EU and Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus’, nearly 44% would prefer Europe and 31% would see Ukraine in Eurasian organization. There is big support of the European choice by Ukrainian youth – 63% people by age 18-29 favour joining to the EU.

So what would be more naturally for the Ukrainian authority than to follow these clear wishing and advance country toward European Union? And what is more stupidly than to jail opposition’s leader and risk to freeze the relations with the EU in one step to conclusion Association agreement?

These are the questions to Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych. He is going come to Brussels on October, 20. At least, this visit was agreed few months ago and was planned as “last check”: EU’s and Ukrainian leaders were to remove all remained obstacles in the negotiations on Association agreement.

For today there is no absolute quarantee  that the visit will happen. EU did not adopt final decision because of conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko. In the same time few days ago Ukrainian MFA’s spokesman told there is no any visits for the October, 20, in presidential agenda.

The last one was very strangely. There are many fears that Yanukovych has desided to stop dialog with the EU.  If so, recent conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko seems as deliberate step to quit the game titled “European integration of Ukraine”. Frankly, it would be naturally: it is well known that Yanukovych and his entourage are not interested in real European transformations in the country. From this point Tymoshenko trial is a suitable case to stop the negotiations on Association agreement since EU’s reaction for the conviction was very predictable.

In contrary – Yanukovych’s visit to Brussels would be an indication of  his readiness to continue dialog with the EU and to finish Tymoshenko trial peacefully, taking into account EU’s demands. Actually, for him there is no reason come to the EU without such intentions.  Peacefull end of “Tymoshenko’s story” could be easy explained as well. Doubtless, Yanukovych would prefer to have in Ukraine the dictatorship like in Belarus’ – but he and other Ukrainian “bosses” absolutely do not want to have war with the EU like Lukashenko has. Just demonstrative, not real European integration would be the best variant for these guys. That is why conclusion of the Association agreement has significant value for them. Also everybody understands that to be with Russia in its Custom Union actually would mean to be under Russia. And if Russian choice will give cheap gas for Ukrainian oligarchs’ businesses in short-term perspective, there is visible risk to lose everything after.

In any case to accept Yanukovych in Brussels would be right decision for the EU. As well as for him  go there. Chances for the “happy end” still exist.

It is always interesting to read about perspective of visa-free travel for the Ukrainians. Special report “Ukraine ups ante in EU visa-free travel talks” by Georgi Gotev (EurActiv, Seprember,15) quite well describes current situation. I just would like to share with some own considerations.
Doubtless, visa issue is one of the most important in EU-Ukraine relations. It is very sensitive for both sides.
Some EU member states are concerned about consequences of possible lifting of the visa regime. One should recognize they have some reasons. Millions of Ukrainians have already immigrated to the EU during last decade, many others would like do the same because of current Ukraine’s problem. As for me the question is whether this immigration really so bed for the EU (usually Ukrainian immigrants  are diligent, enterprising and well educated people)  – but it is another story.

On the other hand millions of Ukrainians who do not intend leave country, feel themselves isolated from Europe. It is quite true that for us current visa regime very often is something like modern Berlin Wall. It harms very much people-to-people contacts, opportunity for business and travels and so on. Finally, it harms European perspectives of Ukraine – to be keen build Europe in Ukraine the Ukrainians would need to see Europe by own eyes. Strong visa regime considerably deprive them such possibility.
So, what about perspectives of visa-free travels for the Ukrainians in visible future? My opinion – it is impossible despite of all pretentious determination and desire of President Yanukovich.
As it was mentioned by Georgi Gotev, there are two big challenges for visa-free regime – huge corruption and undemocratic development in Ukraine. But both are sources for great enriching for the Ukrainian decision-makers. So it is difficult to expect they will sacrifice this to enable common Ukrainians visit EU freely. At least it would be great surprise and absolutely illogical. Thus those EU member-states who would not like give Ukraine visa-free regime can be unworried. As well as Europol.
For today it would be much more realistic and logical if the EU will make existing visa regime more flexible and, I would say, human. Of course, there is EU-Ukraine visa facilitation agreement, the Ukrainians get more and more Schengen visas annually. But it more seems like good external signboards. There are many difficulties, lack of understanding, burocracy behind.
Just one last example. Colleague of mine, famous Ukrainian journalist, is going visit Warsaw to cover future Eastern Partnership summit (September, 29-30). She applied to Polish consulate in Kyiv to give her at least two-years multi visa as before she had the same issued by other member-state’s consulate. But in the result she got visa just for three months. Once I had the same experience with Czech and German consulates. Such situations are very typical. Visa facilitation agreement provides 5-years visas for the journalists, but it is not the case on the practice.

If there is such treatment of journalists in the EU consulates in Ukraine, it is easy imagine what is going on concerning other categories of  citizens. There are lot of injustice, groundless deсisions of the consulates,  compliants from common Ukrainians. It needs immediate corrections. Visa-free regime is very important and desirable, but unfortunatelly it remains for future.

It is always interesting to read about perspective of visa-free travel for the Ukrainians. Special report “Ukraine ups ante in EU visa-free travel talks” by Georgi Gotev  Euractive.com, Seprember,15) quite well describes current situation. I just would like to share some own considerations.

Doubtless, visa issue is one of the most important in EU-Ukraine relations. It is very  sensitive for both sides.

Some EU member states are concerned about consequences of possible lifting of the visa regime. One should recognize they have some reasons. Millions of Ukrainians have already emigrated to the EU during last decade, many others would like do the same because of current Ukraine’s problems.

On the other hand millions of Ukrainians who do not intend leave country, feel themselves isolated from Europe. It is quite true that for us current visa regime is something like modern Berlin Wall. It harms very much people-to-people contacts, opportunity for business and travels and so on. Finally, it harms European perspectives of Ukraine – to be keen build Europe in Ukraine the Ukrainians would need to see Europe by own eyes. Strong visa regime considerably deprive them such possibility.

So, what about perspectives of visa-free travels for the Ukrainians in visible future? My opinion –  it is impossible despite of all pretentious determination and desire of President Yanukovich.

As it was mentioned by Georgi Gotev, there are two big challenges for visa-free regime – huge corruption and undemocratic development in Ukraine. But both are sources for great  enriching for the Ukrainian decision-makers. So it is difficult to expect they will sacrifice this to enable common Ukrainians visit EU freely. At least it would be great surprise and absolutely illogical. Thus those EU member-states who would not like give Ukraine visa-free regime can be unworried. As well as Europol.

For today  it would be much more realistic and logical if the EU will make existing visa regime more flexible and, I would say, human. Of course, there is EU-Ukraine visa liberalization agreement, the Ukrainians get more and more Schengen visas annually. But it more seems like good external signboards. There are many difficulties, lack of understanding, burocracy behind.

Just one last example. Colleague of mine, famous Ukrainian journalist, is going visit Warsaw to cover future Eastern Partnership summit (September, 29-30). She applied to Polish consulate in Kyiv to give her at least two-years multi visa as before she had the same issued by other member-state’s consulate. But in the result she got visa just for three months. Once I had the same experience with Czech and German consulates. Such situations are very typical. Visa liberalization agreement provides 5-years visas for the journalists, but it is not the case on the practice.  If there is such treatment of journalists in the EU consulates in Ukraine, it is easy imagine what is going on concerning other categories of the citizens. It needs immediate corrections. Visa-free regime is very important, but unfortunatelly it remains for future.

Commission’s President Jose Manuel Barroso listed EU’s priorities for the Autumn. In particular he stressed on the need of Union’s help for Libya – „country emerging from 42 years of dictatorship into what we must all ensure is a bright, democratic future”, Barroso said in his video message.

Of course, Libya is very important. Hopefully, dramatic and bloody war will finish shortly and country will start its new era. It is not question should EU or not do all its best to support the Libyan people. Certainly, it should.

My question is why there is not any word about Ukraine in the message? In fact the next few months will be extraordinarily important for the future of EU-Ukraine relations, if not decisive.

On one bowl of scales is Association Agreement. In this Autumn Ukraine can become the first state of Eastern Partnership, with that negotiations on AA will be completed.

On other bowl is crash of these negotiations and foggy EU-Ukraine future. Possible imprisonment of former prime minister Yuliya Tymoshenko and further suppression of democracy will enable positive development in the relations between Ukraine and Europe.

Libya emerging from dictatorship, but Ukraine – biggest European state with about 500 km of common border with EU – can slip down to dictatorship. Should it be EU’s priority to avoid disastrous scenario? At least President Barroso in its message could mark importance of completion the negotiations on Association Agreement . He also could once again underline that necessary conditions for this are stopping political repressions and other undemocratic processes in Ukraine. It would take just one-two sentences in the message.

Just a few weeks ago, the main intrigue of Mrs. Tymoshenko trial was whether Ukrainian president Yanukovych will decide on her arrest or she would remain on freedom to the end of trial. Frankly, arrest looked improbable, as well as further jailing, including through unanimous position of the European Union, USA and other western democracies. They clear warned Ukrainian authority against such steps and stressed on political nature of the case.

However, it did not stop Mr. Yanukovych. Leader of the biggest opposition party is under arrest and her further jailing seems very likely at present. Consequently, main intrigue is what Europe can do to prevent this?

It did already: there were many statements, declarations and comments. Europe has condemned Mrs. Tymoshenko’s arrest strongly and unanimously. However, it definitely must do much more and much harder – EU has to be interested in “peaceful” end of this trial.

First of all Mrs. Tymoshenko’s jailing will certainly put under question ongoing negotiations on Association Agreement – AA should be an award for the reforms and democracy, not for the imprisonment of political opponents and disposition to the dictatorship. Consequently, crash of the negotiations could lead to freezing EU-Ukraine relations at all with further very possible leeway of Ukraine to Russia’s shores. Doubtless, even so called “friends of Russia” like France or Germany would not like such scenario.

Secondly, Ukraine looks like pilot project of the Eastern Partnership. It is most advanced on the way to Association Agreement, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Frea, visa liberalization etc. That is why for the EU is very important to run this project successfully, in order it to be an example for the others Eastern partners. Also real influence on democratic development in Ukraine would be one more important evidence of the EU’s “soft power” – a matter of Europe’s particular pride.

Therefore, EU has to find right arguments to convince Mr. Yanukovich do not make fatal mistake. Of course, everyone understands that European integration of Ukraine, democratizations and reforms are not real values for current Ukrainian president and other people ruling in this country. Naturally, for them failure of the association negotiations would not be a catastrophe. However, all these people have huge assets in Europe; they like to spent here vacations, make shopping etc. Therefore, besides its soft power EU definitely could use some “hard” instruments. At least it is right time to explain Ukrainian leaders that further movement to the dictatorship could cost them personal “European integration”.

Of course, choice between prospects of the Association agreement and sanctions looks very unusual. But it is Ukraine.

At the end of past week former Ukrainian premier Yulia Tymoshenko went on the trial. She is accused of abusing power while signing the 2009 gas agreements with Russia and can be sentenced for 7-10 years of imprisonment.

This is one of the two intriguing processes, each of that to have substantial consequences for the future EU-Ukraine relations. The second one is the negotiations on the Association Agreement (AA) and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), scheduled to finish this year.

EU demonstrates a large desire to complete these negotiations. So large, that forgives so far many assaults of the Ukrainian authority, namely permanent suppression of democracy and disrespect of human rights. EU is still tolerating it despite of own declarations about incompatibility of undemocratic development and conclusion of the Association Agreement.

But Mrs Tymoshenko trial is a special case. Different EU institutions and speakers repeatedly implied or directly stressed on politically motivated character of the criminal prosecution against her (and it’s, certainly, true). Thus for the EU Mrs Tymoshenko’s imprisonment will mean appearance of political prisoners in Ukraine. For comparison – the same situation in Belarus consequenced hard EU sunctions.

Unofficially EU diplomats tell that Mrs Tymoshenko’s imprisonment would definitely freeze the negotiations on AA and DCFTA. It’s understandable: otherwise how EU will explaine that it signs AA with the state, whose authority jailes its political opponents? And what about new principle of the recently revised European Neighbourhood Policy – “more for more” (not more for less, indeed!)?

So looks that Mrs Tymoshenko’s imprisonment will leave no chance for the EU. Its exciting game with President Yanukovich and his regime will be over.

But what about him? At least, unlike the EU Ukrainian President has two possible ways – true, both are not so good for him. While the imprisonment of Mrs Tymoshenko will mean very unpleasant and undesirable problems with Europe (as well as with US), her justification would underline political nature of the prosecution and would give substantial political dividends for this most powerful political opponent of the regime.

But there is one more side of the situation. Actually possible freezing of the EU-Ukraine relations would be very desirable for a wide part of the Ukrainian establishment. For those who have huge advantage from the corruption, politically dependent judiciary, controlled media etc, who want to see Ukraine in Russia’s sphere of influence and build it according to Russian model. Indeed those people do not need pro-European reforms and transformations, free trade and true democracy. Therefore for them Tymoshenko’s imprisonment would be double winning – it would mean disappearance of main political enemy and would quarantee the conservation of the present status quo in the internal Ukraine’s development.

In any case the final decision will be for President Yanukovich. The situation is a crucial test for the frankness of his pro-European declarations.