« | Home | »

The Man Who Mistook Ukraine for a Fur Hat

Tags: | | |

When the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, was a young hoodlum on the make in late 1960s Soviet Donetsk – or so the story goes – he made his first money through the following ruse: he would lurk in a cubicle in a public toilet in winter. When a man came into the cubicle next door, he would wait for the opportune moment, then lean over, grab the man’s expensive fur hat and make a run for it: the victim, caught with his pants down, mid-crap, was in no state to give chase.
Whether the story’s entirely true or not – Yanukovich was definitely a hoodlum and served two terms in prison, for robbery and assault, in 1967 and 1970 – it captures something of his operating methods. Yesterday Yanukovich surprised and dismayed many in Ukraine and Europe when he pulled out of signing an Association Agreement with the EU. The deal had been in the works for years, European integration is a pillar of the major political parties’ doctrines, and the agreement was meant to signify Ukraine’s ‘civilisational choice’ to leave Russia’s orbit and change the geopolitical map of Europe for ever.
The immediate winner of the about-turn is Vladimir Putin: just a few months ago, pundits were saying that the Association Agreement was a done deal and would be a disaster for him. Putin reinstated Vladislav Surkov, the grand vizier of Russian politics who appeared to have fallen from grace, to deal with Ukraine. There was plenty of hard coercion: Ukraine faced the very real risk of trade embargoes, gas cut-offs and immigration hassles if it signed the Association Agreement. But there were almost certainly positive financial incentives too. Yanukovich essentially arranged a last-minute bidding war between the EU and Moscow: the one side offering IMF loans, the other something more. According to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the parliamentary leader of Batkivshchyna, the main opposition party, Yanukovich has forced $20 billion out of the Kremlin, some of which will fund his election campaign in 2015. The president has grabbed as many fur hats as possible.
But I suspect Surkov also offered the Ukrainians what they wanted the most: which was to make no decision. Stall. This has been the dominant pattern of Ukrainian policy since independence. On the one hand, Ukrainian elites are cautious about being too close to Russia and its new ‘Eurasian Union’: Russian oligarchs would gobble up their Ukrainian rivals. EU association was a mechanism to hold the Russians off rather than a virtue in itself. And EU association is onerous: it would mean cutting back on corruption, reforming the judiciary, releasing political prisoners. Few powerful Ukrainians actually want that.
And despite EU pronouncements that they desire a greater Europe which includes Kiev, there is little actual motivation for the key EU powers to bring Ukraine in: the incorporation of Bulgaria and Romania is more than enough to be dealing with. The Ukraine situation may have been billed as a heavyweight clash between the EU and Russia, but the EU doesn’t want any real confrontation. The Council of Ministers has balked at the idea of a US-style Magnitsky Law to name corrupt Russian officials and human rights abusers and prevent them from investing and travelling in the EU. The EU’s most trumpeted ‘standing up to Russia’ initiative is the anti-monopoly investigation into Gazprom, which threatens the way the Russian energy leviathan sells gas to Western Europe and, supposedly, undermines the Kremlin’s plan to keep the EU in an energy stranglehold. The investigation does undermine Gazprom, but it also plays into the hands of other, oligarch-owned gas companies, just as close if not even closer to Putin, who want to move in on Gazprom’s sales. Igor Sechin’s Rosneft (allied with BP) and Gennady Timchenko’s Novatek (allied with France’s Total) both stand to win from Gazprom’s problems.

Comments on “The Man Who Mistook Ukraine for a Fur Hat”

  1. huihuih says:

    Hilarious. After months of being gleeful about Ukraines ‘civilisational choice’ of the “West, “Westerners” are now saying Europe never really wanted it in the first place. No “motivation”; don’t “want any real confrontation.” ‘No sir wasn’t even remotely interested in this, not worth my precious time. Don’t know where you got the impression from’.

    And then there is this: “And EU association is onerous: it would mean cutting back on corruption, reforming the judiciary, releasing political prisoners.” You see the EU is all puppies and ice cream. One would think that at a moment when living standards are being deliberately decimated across the continent to pay off financial institutions and make the economy more profitable one would realize that the way countries fight “corruption” is by making it formal and legal.

  2. ejh says:

    the one side offering IMF loans, the other something more.

    Curious phrase. It would be hard to offer less than an IMF loan, and they’re only really offered in the sense explained by Al Pacino to Diane Keaton.

  3. I should have added that after many press reports saying Surkov was ‘dealing with Ukraine’ Putin’s Press Secretary insisted Surkov would focus only on S. Ossetia and Abkhazia in his role as Presidential assistant. Thanks to Mr Frolov and Mr von Twickel for pointing out. I hear elsewhere Mr Ushakov and, to an extent, Mr Zurabov, are receiving the credit for Ukraine. And naturally the President himself.

  4. JWA says:

    What’s going to happen when Putin goes? Is there a natural replacement? The rumours about his having Parkinson’s seem to be getting more persistent.

  5. Alex K. says:

    One theory I’ve heard in Moscow is that Yanukovich never really planned to sign the EU agreement. He only wanted to scare Moscow into cheaper gas and other perks to help him stay in office in 2015.

    “The rumours about his having Parkinson’s seem to be getting more persistent.”

    So this time it’s Parkinson’s? Last year it was cancer, or complications from a Botox job/stem cell treatment, or both. Parkison’s would fit well with his slightly frozen face as would Botox or plastic surgery.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement