TENSIONS THAT TASTE LIKE GAS

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, whose name is associated with several government crises in this country, is likely to be remembered as the most controversial politician in the history of independent Ukraine. The guilty verdict, handed down on the former prime minister by Kiev's Pechersk court on 11 October for abuse of authority by signing gas contracts with Russia in 2009, dropped like a bombshell, hurting Kiev's relations with Moscow and the West.

The court sentenced the leader of the Fatherland party and the BYT bloc, Tymoshenko, to seven years' imprisonment, barring her from public office in the next three years. She must also pay about 189 million dollars. According to the Ukrainian state national joint-stock company Naftogaz, this is the extent of damage Yulia Tymoshenko caused by signing gas contracts with Russia.

The former premier's lawyers immediately promised to file an appeal with the courts of appeal and cassation as well as the European Court of Human Rights. More zealous supporters of the former prime minister urged the people to hold protests with political demands. But, according to MP Taras Chornovil, Tymoshenko is no longer a politician posing a serious threat to the Ukrainian government, which is why despite the opposition's estimates, tens of thousands of people did not take to the streets of Kiev to protest against the sentence on the ex-premier.

The verdict on Timoshenko caused a much more dramatic outcry outside the country. And, oddly enough, it was one of the rare cases where the positions of Moscow and the West on the issue almost completely coincide. The Russian Foreign Ministry immediately pointed to the "anti-Russian subtext" and political nature of the sentence. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in turn, expressed surprise at the guilty verdict on the former prime minister of Ukraine and her sentencing to seven years' imprisonment.

Moreover, the Kremlin believes that Kiev intends to use the guilty verdict issued by the Pechersk court as a tool of pressure on Moscow to achieve an acceptable price for the Russian gas supplied to Ukraine. Although the current Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov has repeatedly stressed that attempts to revise the gas contracts with Russia have nothing to do with Yulia Tymoshenko's sentence, the Ukrainian publication Zerkalo Nedeli, referring to its sources, writes that the Ukrainian authorities are trying to convince Brussels of the opposite: "This verdict is the only way to revise the gas contracts with Russia and to get rid of Moscow's gas loop." But judging by the West's reaction, which sounds in unison with Russian rhetoric, they have their own opinion on this matter.

And the toughest criticism of the Ukrainian authorities came from European countries and institutions. The EU and the OSCE described the decision of the Pechersk court as unfair and politically motivated, and urged the Ukrainian authorities to ensure "transparency and impartiality" when considering a possible appeal to protect Yulia Tymoshenko. The European Commission noted that Tymoshenko's case may affect the EU's relations with Ukraine. The largest fraction of the European Parliament, the European People's Party (EPP), demanded that the sentence, which bears a political character, be revoked. Otherwise, it promised Ukraine adverse consequences for the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. By the way, the Fatherland party, led by Yulia Tymoshenko, became part of the EPP in January 2008. The current chairman of the EU - Poland - said that Ukraine risks its reputation as a country leaning towards the EU. EU High Commissioner for Common Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton responded to the court decision as follows: "The way the Ukrainian government generally respects the universal values and the rule of law, and in particular, the way it behaves in these cases can seriously affect bilateral relations between the EU and Ukraine." A. F. Steffel, an MP from Germany's ruling party, the Christian-Democratic Union, suggested stripping Ukraine of its status as a host of the European football championship in 2012. His view was echoed by a group of French political figures and scholars, who said that, in order to change the position of political and judicial authorities in Kiev, they intend to appeal to FIFA not to hold the European Football Championship in Ukraine. The foreign minister of Germany, Guido Westerwelle, described the verdict as the decline of the rule of law in Ukraine: "The sentence on the former prime minister is a step back for Ukraine. Unfortunately, it sheds a very negative light on the state of the rule of law in Ukraine. Such a situation cannot but have consequences for relations between Ukraine and the EU."

Although the reaction of Washington and NATO was not so sharp and radical, they expressed the hope that the Ukrainian authorities will find the political will for a positive solution to this problem. That is to say Yulia Tymoshenko's sentence will be reviewed, and she will be acquitted. Faced with cross-pressure from the West and the East, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych said in a statement that this is not the final decision and it is necessary to await the verdict of the Court of Appeal. As acknowledged by Viktor Yanukovych, he himself does not like the decision, which affects the process of Ukraine's European integration: "Does it interfere with the issue of Ukraine's European integration? Yes, it does. Do I like it? No. I have repeatedly said that I do not like it in any way and I have a negative attitude to this process." But at the same time, the Ukrainian president openly hinted that he could not influence the decision of the court and the criminal case against Tymoshenko should be separated from Ukraine's integration into the EU: "It does not matter that someone in Ukraine or Europe does not like the verdict, the rule of law is the most important thing."

Meanwhile, Kiev took another knight's move in order to counter political pressure from both Moscow and the West. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) promptly filed a criminal case against the former prime ministers, Yulia Tymoshenko and Pavel Lazarenko, for the 405-million-dollar debt of the UESU Corporation (Unified Energy Systems of Ukraine) to Russia. It is noteworthy that the case was filed after the verification of a letter from the Russian Ministry of Defence, which came to Ukraine in August.

We believe that by instituting a new criminal case against Tymoshenko, Kiev got a strong trump card to play against its opponents. First, if Moscow doubts the impartiality of the Pechersk court verdict, why is it that the second criminal case, which was initiated at the request of the Russian Defence Ministry, does not cause similar associations? If Russia insists on compensation for its financial losses, why is it irritated by the decision of the Ukrainian court which handed down a guilty verdict on Yulia Tymoshenko, whose actions during the signing of gas agreements, the court believes, seriously damaged the interests of Ukraine? Second, if the former prime minister of Ukraine, Lazarenko, was convicted in the United States for his financial machinations, why is it that his "accomplice" and prot?g? Tymoshenko should not get an adequate punishment for her actions in the same case? When it comes to the rule of law, there should be no differentiated approach to criminal cases on financial crimes. In any case, logic dictates that this is the stance of the Ukrainian justice system.

Of course, each side, which is trying to put pressure on Kiev, has its own interests. Moscow sends a strong message that Kiev should not expect concessions in the gas deal. The Kremlin is also unhappy with the excessive desire of Viktor Yanukovych, who is always regarded as a pro-Russian politician, for European integration. In addition, during the recent secret negotiations with the Russian president and prime minister, Dmitriy Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the Ukrainian president issued a number of ultimatums in response to the invitation to join the Customs Union (CU). In particular, in response to expensive gas, he threatened to demand the withdrawal of the Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea and to deploy missile defence systems on Ukrainian territory. In this regard, the EU's displeasure with the decision of the Pechersk court plays into the hands of the Kremlin, which is trying to persuade Ukraine to join the TC, something that the European Union categorically rejects.

Meanwhile, Europe is not interested in a gas war between Russia and Ukraine, especially in light of Kiev's allegations that the sentence on Yulia Tymoshenko is the only way to revise the gas contracts with Russia and to get rid of Moscow's gas loop. But if this tactic does not work, then the Russian loop around the neck of European countries can become even tighter. Ahead of the winter season and the absence of alternative sources for the energy security of Europe, the EU does not need such excesses. In addition, leading EU countries, lobbying for the interests of Russia in Europe, are not going to sacrifice for the sake of Ukraine's their relations with Moscow, where there is also a strong "odour of gas".

A member of the parliamentary faction of the Ukrainian Party of Regions, Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on European Integration, Vladimir Vecherko, argues that the criminal case against the ex-premier caused the greatest outcry in countries that oppose the revision of the gas contract between Ukraine and Russia. He particularly emphasizes the role of Germany, which opposes changes in conditions of transit and delivery.

Most likely, another important factor that causes irritation in Brussels is Viktor Yanukovych's desire to expedite Ukraine's integration into Europe. Today, the EU and Ukraine are almost on the threshold of signing the Association Agreement and an agreement on the free trade zone. But at the Warsaw summit on Eastern Partnership, Yanukovych spoke out not only for the swift cancellation of EU visa regulations for nationals of the countries involved in this project, but actually set a condition that Eastern Partnership should open a direct road to membership in the EU in the long-run. And it is unlikely that such a drive pleased the major players of the organization plagued by serious contradictions in the recent period. Why do they need another country, which not only wants to become a member of the EU, but also claims a certain weight in the organization?

In this context, the Pechersk court verdict came in very handy. On the initiative of the EU, Ukrainian president's visit to Brussels, which was scheduled for 20 October, was postponed indefinitely. It is within the framework of this visit that it was planned to sign the Association Agreement and the agreement on the free trade zone between the EU and Ukraine. According to some experts, Tymoshenko's guilty verdict became a convenient tool in the hands of Brussels, which is trying to temper Kiev's ambitions.

Washington's negative position on the decision of the Pechersk court, most likely, can be explained by the following points. First of all, whatever it is, the White House still sees Yanukovych as a pro-Russian politician. In this context, pro-Western Tymoshenko was a more attractive figure for Washington in the next presidential election in Ukraine. Moreover, Yulia Tymoshenko herself is confident that the Russian intelligence service wants to destroy her, which is why they initiated a criminal case against her for transferring the debts of the UESU Corporation to the Ukrainian budget. Second, the United States, which is used to "orange revolutions", is likely to try to keep the charismatic politician Yulia Tymoshenko afloat in Ukraine. Third, perhaps, Washington cannot forgive Yanukovych for signing the agreement on extending the stationing of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol until 2042. Finally, it is possible that the White House suspects Viktor Yanukovych of playing a double game in which the Ukrainian president is trying to gain dividends on the Eastern and Western "fronts". But the main problem is how all interested players, who have cornered themselves, are going to come out of this sensitive situation. And how highly are the legal aspects of this game assessed?