Dmitri Medvedev's Disinformation Blog

by Roman Kupchinsky

The Kremlin never fails to astonish its world-wide audience.

In what can best be described as an open letter to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko posted on the Russian President's website on August 11, Dmitri Medvedev took the proverbial gloves off and lashed out at the democratically elected Ukrainian President.

The pretext of his letter was a directive he signed that day postponing the appointment of a new Russian ambassador to Ukraine.

By publicizing his private communication on his website and his video blog Medvedev turned what should have been a civil debate on differing views between him and Yushchenko on the nature of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, into a new confrontation.

The Russian President did everything in his power to popularize his views in order to turn them into an instrument of anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western propaganda and prolong the ongoing anti-Ukrainian campaign that began in 2004.

The Kremlin's disinformation campaign that the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004 was not a popular one, but was funded and organized by the government of the United States, remains alive and well in the imagination of many Russians. “Democratically elected” is a term which is still widely misunderstood on the streets of Russia.

The letter to Yushchenko appears to have been carefully crafted by the Kremlin’s spin- doctors in order to incite an anti-Ukrainian backlash among the Russian folk. Medvedev’s letter includes denunciations of Ukraine’s support of Georgia during last year’s Russian invasion of that country; Ukraine’s continued efforts to join NATO; and attempts to diversify gas supplies –denouncing Ukraine’s agreement to allow the European Union to have a say in the main Ukrainian pipeline which brings gas to Europe.

Medvedev did not fail to include historical issues such as the role of the Ukrainian Partisan Army and its struggle for Ukrainian independence against both the fascist invaders and the Red Army during World War Two, which he characterized as the “glorification of Nazi collaborators” and his rejection of the Stalinist man-made famine in Ukraine as “genocide.”

That same day, Medvedev met with veterans of the “Great Fatherland War” at a round table and went out of his way to praise Ukrainian Red Army veterans.

The Russian President’s video blog site received a number of comments by visitors to Medvedev's letter to Yushchenko on the site and they reveal a stark microcosmic view of Russian attitudes towards Ukraine.

“We can get a knife in the back from Ukraine anytime. History has not taught Russia anything.“

“Ukraine is an artificial state” (Vladimir Putin once whispered this same theory into the ear of former U.S. President George Bush) “something created by the Bolsheviks after their coming to power…”

“I am a Russian citizen unfortunate to be living in Odessa… I was against the collapse of the USSR and observed the era of Gorbachev – Yeltsin which was very strange…I am very grateful to you, Dmitri Anatolevich about what concerns Ukraine…”

Ukrainian acting Foreign Minister,Volodymyr Khandogiy's response to Medvedev’s letter was low-key: “I am not personally upset by this, but it does evoke a somewhat disappointing feeling.”

Reforming the Ukrainian Gas Sector

by Roman Kupchinsky

Can the Ukrainian natural gas sector be reformed? For the last two decades the Ukrainian gas business has been one of the least transparent and reportedly most corrupt and mismanaged sectors of the economy. Will this begin changing in 2009-2010?

Ukrainian policy makers and politician’s have resisted reforms tooth and nail because if they were implemented they would not only abolish a system which was so profitable for the political and economic elites, but would further impoverish an already poor population.

However, once the price charged for Russian gas reached European market levels in 2009; hastened by a debilitating shutdown of gas supplies to Europe in January 2009, the European Commission had had enough and began demanding immediate demonstrable reforms.

By June/July 2009 the European Commission finally had the leverage it needed to force Kyiv into taking action. Ukraine lacked the $4 billion needed to pay Russia’s Gazprom for gas to insure uninterrupted supplies to the EU during the fall/winter heating season. Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko had asked Russia for a loan - which was rejected - so she turned to the Commission with her request.

At the heart of the problem is the domestic pricing structure for Ukrainian produced gas which is sold to regional communal heating companies which supply heat and hot water to domestic consumers. The price currently charged communal heating companies is $154 per 1,000 cubic meters while the price of Russian gas is $228/1,000 cubic meters – a difference of $74 which is subsidized by the state budget.

On July 17, European banks demanded that these state subsidies end. According to the Commission spokesman Mark Grey, a decision on extending credits to Ukraine will be announced only after the Ukrainian government provides a definitive date when the subsidies will end.

Meanwhile the head of the Ukrainian National Regulating Commission for Power, Valeriy Kalchenko, stated the price of gas for consumers “does not make any economical sense”.

Yet Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, immersed in an upcoming bitter presidential campaign, expressed doubts that the price of gas for Ukrainian consumers will rise in 2009. “Do not believe in rumors. I ask you to wait for the signing of a memorandum and then it will become clear if there will be a price increase or not”.

Earlier, Tymoshenko had promised to increase consumer prices in 2009 by 20 percent, a bare minimal which will not solve the problem according to experts. What is needed is a far greater increase, a proposition few in the Ukrainian government are willing to endorse at this time.

Are reforms likely? Many observers believe they will be postponed until 2010 or later. If so, Europe could well expect another gas delivery crisis this fall.

New Russian Ambassador to Ukraine

Published by Kommersant, photo by Dmitry Dykhanin

by Roman Kupchinsky

In 2009 two new ambassadors will present their credentials to the president of Ukraine – one will be from the United States the other from Russia, two states who are vitally interested in Ukraine through which some 80 percent of Russian gas to Europe transits through.

Rumors in Washington indicate the new U.S. envoy will be John Tefft, currently ambassador to Georgia. But there are also whispers that it could be someone else.

Tufft has had a long and notable career as a diplomat. The Department of State’s official bio states: “John F. Tefft was sworn in as United States Ambassador to Georgia on July 28, 2005. He has been a career Foreign Service Officer for thirty-three years. Before assuming his current position, Ambassador Tefft served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and was responsible for U.S. relations with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova“.

The man apparently chosen by the Kremlin to represent Russia in Ukraine is a bit more controversial in the eyes of Russian nationalists. Mikhail Zurabov, the former health minister, who currently is an adviser to President Dmitry Medvedev, is an unexpected choice as one source in the Russian Foreign Ministry told Kommersant Daily.

According to Kommersant, a member of the Russian State’s Duma’s Committee on CIS Affairs stated that he would “not like to see Zurabov” as ambassador. “With Zurabov’s appointment all illusions will disappear that we have any type of policy towards Ukraine.”

The deputy head of the CIS committee, Konstantin Zatulin, was even more categorical in his criticism of Zurabov. “The appointment of Zurabov will be a mistake. He is not a political figure but a manager who is not very popular”.

With Ukrainian presidential elections due in January 2010, Russia needs an envoy who will promote the Kremlin’s line in Kyiv. “Chernomyrdin was not able to and Zurabov more so. The ambassadors from the U.S. and Poland are very active in these matters, but if our ambassador remains silent this will not be understandable” Zatulin added.

It is clear that the Russian government, like most other governments, does not want a maverick in Kyiv but prefers a loyal, manager/spokesman who will do what he is told and leave policy making to Vladimir Putin – with some input from President Medvedev.

What the opposition to Zurabov could mean however, it that Russia's Ukrainian policy is being challenged by hard-line nationalists like Zatulin who was banned from entering Ukraine on a number of occasions.