Prime passion. Who will replace Yatsenyuk as prime minister of Ukraine?
One can hardly doubt that Ukraine is under almost complete "external control" of the United States of America. The presence of a large number of former foreign citizens, who instantly changed the passports of Georgia or the Baltic countries to the Ukrainian “little book with a trident,” and occupied the most important posts in the system of state administration and security agencies, is another proof of this.
Yatsenyuk will be gone soon
The other day, former US ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Pifer on his Twitter announced that he was preparing the appointment of a new head of the Ukrainian government in Kiev. Peifer was the first high-ranking US official to confirm the information spread among the journalistic community about personnel changes in the Ukrainian government at the highest level. Meanwhile, no one is surprised, why the American diplomat, and not, say, a Ukrainian politician, makes such statements? Moreover, Pifer's post on the social network even seems quite natural, it would be surprising if a Ukrainian, rather than an American official, spoke out with a prediction of imminent changes in the leadership of Ukraine. This is another confirmation of the "external management" in Ukraine by the US State Department. Most likely, the American leadership purposefully authorized this “stuffing” - both to prepare the public, and in order to emphasize to the Kiev leaders their real place. After all, it is no secret that the policy of the Ukrainian government has recently begun to cause a certain discontent with its overseas owners. Washington’s skepticism about the policy of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk began to talk and write a lot in the spring of 2015. It is clear that in Ukraine, Yatsenyuk is unhappy with the majority of the country's population, and even the radical nationalists who played a key role on Euromaidan and in punitive operations in the Donbas. But the opinion of the Ukrainian population does not affect the appointment or dismissal of the Ukrainian prime ministers. But much more important is the attitude to the figure of the Prime Minister by the US State Department. If the State Department approves, then sit the minister in his chair until he loses approval. If he does not approve, then his days as the head of the government will be numbered in the foreseeable future.
The fiasco in the Donbas and the almost complete failure of the “reform policy” were the main reasons for dissatisfaction with the activities of the Yatsenyuk government by the American leadership. Initially, American leaders were counting on bringing the Ukrainian economy, law enforcement agencies and state authorities of Ukraine into a state that satisfies US interests. It was for this purpose that it was intended to carry out “reforms” - that is, a radical reorganization of a significant part of the public life of Ukraine to the standards of the American satellites. However, in March, 2015 began to raise questions to Arseniy Yatsenyuk about the extremely slow implementation of reforms.
Failure of reforms
One of the first and most notable areas of activity of the Ukrainian government, where the complete failure of the reform policy is evident, is the modernization of the Ukrainian armed forces. As you know, Ukraine approached the Maidan with extremely weak armed forces, which have undergone numerous reductions. President Viktor Yanukovych abolished universal military duty in Ukraine, and the country's army was supposed to be fully contractual. The weakness of the Ukrainian armed forces did not allow them to react either to the reunification of the Crimea with Russia, or to the events that began in the spring of 2014 in the New Russia. Only with the start of the notorious “anti-terrorist operation” in the Donbass, the new Ukrainian authorities attended to strengthening the armed forces, as they saw that the National Guard detachments and volunteer battalions, staffed by activists of nationalist organizations, could not cope with the resistance of the Novorossia militia. However, the strengthening of the armed forces of the country immediately went only along the line of increasing numbers. To achieve this goal, the Ukrainian leadership has taken several waves of mobilization. As a result of the mass recruitment of completely unprepared for the service of people - yesterday's peasants and workers, and of completely different ages - from 18 to 65 years, many Ukrainian army units soon began to make a tragicomic impression. In fact, they were a typical "cannon fodder", devoid of the necessary clothing and weapons. Complete lack of preparation of personnel, lack of professionalism of officers (the lack of junior and middle-level commanders became one of the most important problems for the Ukrainian army) led to massive losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the operation in the Donbas.
Naturally, such a depressing state of the armed forces of Ukraine could not please the overseas patrons of the Kiev government. Washington demanded from Kiev the speedy implementation of military reform and giving the Ukrainian army more or less combat-worthy character. Officially, these requirements were expressed in the form of advice to the Ukrainian leadership to transfer the armed forces to NATO standards. But it turned out that due to the large-scale corruption in the armed forces and the lack of professionalism of their commanding staff, from junior officers to the highest level, it is not possible to carry out the rapid implementation of military reform. The head of the Armed Forces Committee of the US House of Representatives, U. Thornberry, in March 2015 met with the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, at which he specifically drew attention to the inhibition of military reform in Ukraine. According to the congressman, the United States could more actively support Ukraine if the Ministry of Defense of the country really were going to carry out military reform. Thornberry also stressed that the American leadership doubts whether it is possible to entrust American weapons to the military personnel of the Ukrainian armed forces - after all, according to reports of American advisers and instructors, the majority of Ukrainian military do not know how to handle small arms. weapons.
At the beginning of March 2016, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Stepan Poltorak at NATO Headquarters announced the draft Strategic Defense Bulletin of Ukraine, according to which the Ministry of Defense is planned to be reformed by the end of 2018, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine - by the end of 2020. This plan was prepared with the participation of NATO advisers, however, at the same time, while the North Atlantic Alliance is not going to admit Ukraine into its membership. According to the leadership of NATO, the country is not ready for this either politically, militarily or economically.
Another area in which the reform was supposed to be - the energy sector. The American leadership planned a quick and effective reform of the energy complex of Ukraine with the goal of freeing the country from its strong dependence on Russia. However, although the Ukrainian leadership promised to reform the energy sector, soon the American experts were able to see that the Ukrainian authorities not only could not implement the reform of the energy sector, but did not even bother to form projects and programs. Meanwhile, considerable funds were allocated to the development of these programs by the US departments. It turns out that in Ukraine they were simply plundered. The high level of corruption has become one of the main reasons for criticism of the Ukrainian government by the American leadership. Despite the fact that on Euromaidan President Yanukovych and the government of Azarov were accused of corruption, after the seizure of power in Kiev, opposition supporters of corruption in the activities of government structures did not become less. Moreover, they talk about a significant increase in corruption, permeating literally all the structures of state power in modern Ukraine. Corruption covers all levels of the Ukrainian authorities, all ministries. The reform of the civil service had no real impact on the situation in the sphere of corruption and nepotism. Although the principle of filling civil service posts on a competitive basis was introduced, which was supposed to prevent the sale of government posts or the assignment of relatives or friends to them, the Ukrainian political system immediately adapted to the new personnel policy. Even under competitive selection conditions, officials manage to organize appointments for the positions of the right people. Not led to any results and judicial reform.
Washington criticizes
American politicians began to criticize the behavior of the Ukrainian government a year after the victory of the Maidan. So, back in February, 2015, the US ambassador to Ukraine, J. Payette, raised the question of the survival of the Ukrainian statehood itself in the context of further inhibition of reforms or the preservation of a corrupt system. Of course, Ukrainian officials do not want, and can not conduct their business differently. After all, their career development took place in an atmosphere of corruption, nepotism, cronyism, mutual informal agreements. On the other hand, Ukrainian leaders are well aware of the danger of American and European dissatisfaction with their policies. If this discontent reaches a certain point, then the United States, without any doubt, will easily replace the entire leadership of Ukraine. By means of a new Maidan or simply a denial of support, the next change of power in the country will be carried out, and what is waiting for the current leaders of the state and officials of lower rank after that, we can only guess. Therefore, the Ukrainian leadership has resorted to the practice of building “Potemkin villages” - programs and projects are being developed with loud names and content, convincing of the reformist and democratic orientation of the current Ukrainian regime. With the help of “blowing dust in the eyes,” Ukrainian leaders have so far managed to maintain the support of the United States and the European Union. But, as evidenced by the events, this situation may end as soon as possible. This is evidenced by the growing demonstrative discontent of American politicians, and rallies of radical nationalists dissatisfied with the Yatsenyuk government in Kiev.
At the same time, the American leadership is very afraid that in case of further deterioration of the economic and political situation in Ukraine in the context of the government’s complete inability to at least somehow organize life in the country, the pro-American regime in Kiev may fall under the blows of the Ukrainian people themselves. And then it is completely possible that the new Maidan will bring to power those forces that are no longer determined to cooperate with the United States on the same scale. Especially if neighboring Russia can have a significant impact on the political moods of the protest masses. Therefore, the American leadership is urgently looking for ways out of this situation. On the one hand, the political impotence of the Ukrainian government does not make it possible to improve life in the country even with loans from the IMF and the International Bank, on the other hand the actual loss of Donbass, the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the country's complete economic collapse convince more and more Ukrainians that after Euromaidan, life has become much worse than during the reign of President Viktor Yanukovych. The situation is very dangerous for the American positions in Ukraine and the situation in Washington is well aware of this. Most likely, in order to keep the situation under control, Washington will undertake a tried and true move - the search for a “goat (or goats) scapegoat” in the top Ukrainian leadership. It is on this “scapegoat” that all the numerous mistakes of the Kiev regime will be imposed, they will declare him an insolvent leader and will be dismissed. Such a figure, apparently, is still the current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. It is he who is criticized by nationalist organizations accusing him of conducting inefficient economic policies and indecisive actions in the Donbas, and American leaders who blame him for slowing down the “reform policy”. During a visit to Kiev, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland also spoke of the absence of a real “reform policy” in Ukraine. According to several sources in the media, Victoria Nuland told Arseniy Yatsenyuk that he was to become a scapegoat, which all political opponents and critics would blame for the failure of reform policies. Nuland also called default the only possible means of resolving the current economic situation in Ukraine.
US citizen for the premier?
According to preliminary data, in the near future, Arseniy Yatsenyuk will be forced to resign. He should be replaced as head of the Ukrainian government Natalia Yaresko, who holds the post of finance minister of the country. It was her name that the former United States Ambassador to Kiev Stephen Peifer named a likely candidate for the post of prime minister of the country. Nataliya Yaresko is a very significant figure on the political Olympus of modern Ukraine. Not so long ago, her name was Natalie Ann Yaresko. She was born 24 on April 1965 in Elmhurst, Illinois, USA. Accordingly, by birth is a citizen of the United States of America. Parents Yaresko were immigrants from Ukraine. In 1987, Natalie Yaresko received a bachelor of science degree in accounting, graduating from De Paul Private University in Chicago. On this education Yaresko not over - in 1989, she became a master of public administration at the School of Public Administration. Kennedy (Harvard University USA). In 1989, 24-year-old Yaresko was hired by the Department of the European Union in the Department of Europe and Canada at the US Department of State. So the young daughter of Ukrainian immigrants became a “Sovietologist” - a specialist in economic issues at the US State Department. Her career was quite successful. In 1991-1992 she worked as an adviser to the Economic Bureau of the US State Department, and already in 1992 she became the head of the economic department of the US Embassy in Ukraine. From that moment on, her life was inextricably linked with the US-Ukrainian relationship. At the embassy, Yaresko worked until 1995, and in thirty years transferred to the Direct Investment Fund in the Small and Medium Business Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), where she became regional investment manager in the CIS countries. In 2001, she led WNISEF. As is known, this fund was created by the decision of the US Congress, and its funding is provided by the US Agency for International Development. At the same time, Yaresko was also active in the business, having founded the managing company Horizon Capital in 2006. Shares in the companies Agro-Soyuz, Vitmark-Ukraine, Datagroup, Inkerman and a number of other enterprises and organizations were under the control of this company.
The Orange Revolution gave Yaresko the green light for a career in the Ukrainian leadership — she became a member of the Foreign Investment Advisory Council under President Yushchenko and the Advisory Committee of the Ukrainian Foreign Investment Promotion Center under the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. But the real turning point in the work biography of this American citizen became Euromaidan. After the overthrow of President Yanukovych and the establishment in Kiev of a pro-American government, Yaresko, among many other foreigners who were management specialists, was invited to the government of Ukraine. The first such initiative was made by Andrei Sadovy, who offered Yaresko to the post of first deputy prime minister in the government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Sadovych described Yaresko as a patriot of Ukraine and a person who is well aware of Ukrainian politics and economics. In principle, about the second point, Sadoviy may have been right - yet Yaresko spent the last twenty years in Ukraine as an employee of various American organizations. Only one moment interfered - Yaresko remained a citizen of the United States of America, but for the Kiev government, which invited many foreign citizens to important government posts at the initiative of the USA, this was not an obstacle.
2 December 2014, the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko granted Natalia Yaresko Ukrainian citizenship, after which she received the formal right to occupy leadership positions in the public service of the country. After that, Natalia Yaresko was appointed Minister of Finance of Ukraine. Almost immediately after the appointment, she explained that the cause of the economic crisis experienced by modern Ukraine is the planned economy and the communist system in its recent past. Among Ukrainian statesmen, Yaresko is considered one of the main promoters of the “course of economic reforms.” It is in this capacity that she always remained among the possible candidates for the post of prime minister of the country in the event of Arseny Yatsenyuk’s departure. Of course, that Yaresko is a figure representing the interests of the United States in Ukraine. Therefore, the more dissatisfaction with the policy of the government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk grows in Washington, the more likely are Natalia Yaresko’s chances of leading the Ukrainian government. True, in 2015, she stated that if she received an offer to head the Ukrainian government, she would reject it. But it is quite clear that if this offer in the form of an order comes from Washington, she is unlikely to refuse. The American leadership cannot fail to regard the American citizen Yaresko as one of the most obedient and suitable figures to fill the post of prime minister. It is not by chance that she is called the “Special Forces of Economic Reforms”, for which the US State Department is counting less and less on the implementation of the Yatsenyuk government. In any case, Yaresko is among the most “own” people in the Ukrainian government and if she is appointed to the post of prime minister of Ukraine, this will mean that Washington has finally become disillusioned with the ability to govern Ukraine with the help of local officials and politicians who come from Ukraine. oligarchies and nationalist parties.
Former head of Vinnitsa - another candidate
According to the Financial Times, more than ten days ago, Yaresko received an offer to head the Ukrainian government - not only from the Washington Regional Committee, but also from Ukrainian top officials - President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. In the Verkhovna Rada, the support of Yaresko will be provided by the deputies of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko and the Popular Front. Natalia Yaresko has already started recruiting the staff of the future government of Ukraine, but then negotiations on the most important points of the future government’s activities have reached an impasse. As a result, the course of the appointment of Yaresko to the post of prime minister of the country was temporarily suspended. In addition, according to the publication, Petro Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk have begun to search for an alternative candidate, who can also lead the government of the country. As such, in particular, is considered Vladimir Groysman. Unlike Natalia Yaresko, Groisman is a native of Ukraine, a young and, as it is believed, a promising representative of the modern Ukrainian political elite. Vladimir Borisovich Groisman was born in 1978 in Vinnitsa, on January 20 he was just 38 years old. Vladimir Groysman's father Boris Isaakovich Groisman in 2002-2006. was a deputy of the Vinnitsa city council. If you believe the official biography of Vladimir Groisman, then he began his career as early as 14 years, and not by anyone, but as a mechanic at the Shkolnik enterprise. His career as a locksmith developed so well that two years later, at sixteen years old, Groisman was appointed commercial director of the small enterprise OKO, and in November 1994 was appointed commercial director at Yunost, which was led by father Boris Isaakovich. From that time until 2005, Groisman worked in various commercial organizations - of course, in senior positions. Higher education received, as they say, without interrupting director responsibilities. So, in the 2003 year, in the 25 years, Vladimir Groysman graduated from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management with a degree in Jurisprudence. In 2010, he earned a master’s degree in Social Development Management at the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine.
In addition to commercial activities, early Vladimir Groysman engaged in politics. Already at the age of 24, in the 2002 year, he became the youngest member of the Vinnitsa city council. In this capacity, he was at the post of deputy head of the permanent deputy commission of the city council on human rights, rule of law, parliamentary activity and ethics. In 2005, Vladimir Groysman was elected to the post of secretary of the Vinnitsa city council and was appointed acting head of Vinnitsa. 26 March 2006. 28-year-old Groisman was elected the mayor of Vinnitsa, and at the next election of 31 on October 2010 was re-elected to this post — this time from the Conscience of Ukraine political party. For Groysman then voted 77,8% of voters in Vinnitsa. The next step in the political career of Groisman opened after Euromaidan. Already 27 February 2014, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk invited Groysman to take the post of deputy prime minister and, at the same time, minister of regional development, construction and housing and communal services. Like Yaresko, he had to take up reforms, in particular - the "decentralization of power." The concept of reforming local self-government and the territorial organization of power in Ukraine, developed on the initiative of Groisman, suggested a significant expansion of the powers of local self-government bodies and the reorganization of Ukrainian local self-government bodies according to the Polish model. 27 November 2014 Vladimir Groysman was elected chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, thus becoming the third person in the official hierarchy of the Ukrainian state. By the way, in the 2014 year, even before being elected chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, Volodymyr Groysman almost became the Prime Minister of Ukraine. When Arseniy Yatsenyuk 24 July 2014 announced his resignation from the post of prime minister of the country, it was Vladimir Groysman who was appointed acting prime minister. But after the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 31 July 2014 did not accept the resignation of Yatsenyuk, the appointment of Groisman to the post of prime minister was canceled.
Disputes around the premier
At present, the question of appointing Groisman to the post of head of the Ukrainian government has again arisen. Groysman himself does not exclude the possibility that he agrees to take the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine. However, the probability of his appointment is still not rated very high. So, it is known that the candidacy of Natalia Yaresko is viewed by the American leadership and the world financial community as significantly more acceptable. Firstly, Natalia Yaresko is more closely connected with the American leadership, has extensive experience in financial and economic work. Secondly, the United States and international financial circles are more inclined to trust Yaresko as a person who is able to carry out the economic transformations necessary for Washington in Ukraine. As for the candidate Groisman, then it is considered as a weaker one. Groisman, in the opinion of American leaders, is more dependent on the influence of the Ukrainian oligarchs and President Petro Poroshenko, respectively - will be less independent. There is a very high probability that Natalia Yaresko herself will refuse to work under the leadership of Vladimir Groysman as minister. That is, it will leave the ranks of the Ukrainian government, and this will inevitably lead to a number of serious systemic problems. In particular, international investors may refuse to work with the new Ukrainian government of Groisman, and then support for Ukraine from international financial organizations will be suspended. For a weak Ukrainian economy, this can be a fatal blow.
Do not call us a Pole?
On Natalia Yaresko, the list of likely “Varyags” who can be invited to the post of head of the Ukrainian government does not end there. So, it is known that in December 2015, the Ukrainian politicians representing the Petro Poroshenko Bloc, began negotiations with Leszek Balcerowicz, a Polish politician and economist. The negotiations were conducted by the people's deputy from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc faction, Igor Gryniv, known as the longtime confidant of the Ukrainian president. Leszek Balcerowicz, 69-year-old Ph.D., is considered the author of the Polish “shock therapy” - the transition from a planned economy to a “free market”. Back in 1978-1981. Balcerowicz led a team of scientists who were involved in developing a project for economic reforms in Poland. At about the same time, he became close to the Solidarity trade union, and in 1981 he left the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP). In August, 1989, at the suggestion of Lech Walesa, Balcerowicz became part of the first government of the Polish Solidarity. 12 September 1989 Balcerowicz was appointed vice-premier and finance minister in the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki, starting to organize economic reforms in Poland. According to Balcerowicz’s program, Poland’s transition to a market economy was to be carried out in a short time. It was supposed to raise market prices, reduce state budget expenditures, limit monetary incomes, introduce partial internal reversibility of zloty for Polish enterprises. The reforms undertaken by Balcerovich provoked criticism from numerous opponents, and in 1991 he left the government of Poland. Since then, Balcerowicz has been engaged in teaching and research activities, including at Brown University and the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington (USA). By the way, as an economic adviser, Leszek Balcerovich also participated in the implementation of market reforms in Russia, so he can be considered directly involved in the “shock therapy” in our country. In 1997, Leszek Balcerowicz returned to the Polish government, formed by Jerzy Buzek, and took over as deputy prime minister and minister of finance. He resigned from these posts in June 2000, and was soon appointed to the post of chairman of the National Bank of Poland, which he remained in until the 2007 year. He also advised Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze on economic issues.
With such a biography, Balcerovich, as one would expect, has a certain prestige in the circles of the “marketeers” and enjoys the sympathies of the Western states. When Euromaidan took place in Ukraine, Balzerovich began to show great interest in political events in this country. In particular, he expressed the opinion that economic reforms in Ukraine could be carried out in the conditions of the war in the Donbas, moreover, he called the war a “shock therapy” that would contribute to the improvement of the Ukrainian economy. According to representatives of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko, Baltserovich enjoys the support of the West, the sympathy of the “Ukrainian middle class”, and therefore is capable of “clearing the stables of party appointees”. Balcerowicz is convinced that Ukraine needs a “comprehensive and fast therapy”, which will allow for the privatization and de-monopolization of the Ukrainian economy. Balcerowicz considers the “external liberalization” of Ukrainian politics to be an important condition for economic reforms and emphasizes that modern Ukraine has political rather than economic problems. Liberalization will increase competition and, in the opinion of the economist, the “recovery” of the Ukrainian economy.
Naturally, the rumors about the possible appointment of the Polish economist to the post of prime minister of Ukraine, excited the media. The journalists appealed to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Poland and the author of the Polish “shock therapy” for clarification. However, Leszek Balcerowicz replied that he did not want to become a Ukrainian Prime Minister, but fully allowed for himself the opportunity to become a “strategic advisor” to the Ukrainian government on economic issues. According to Balcerovich, the person speaking Ukrainian should become the Prime Minister of Ukraine. At the same time, he expressed willingness to participate in the conduct of economic reforms in the country.
Turchinov - a nominal character
Finally, another candidate for the post of prime minister is Alexander Turchinov. It was he who was the first Ukrainian and. President after the coup in Kiev and the removal from office of President Viktor Yanukovych. The life path of 52-year-old Turchinov is impressive. In Soviet times - studying at the Dnepropetrovsk Metallurgical Institute, with active Komsomol activities. Then - work at the factory and, from 1987 to 1990. - the post of secretary of the Komsomol district committee, head of the agitation and propaganda department of the Dnipropetrovsk regional Komsomol committee. In this capacity, Turchinov participated in the activities of the Democratic platform in the CPSU, for which he was expelled from the party. From that time began the next, “market” milestone in the biography of Turchinov. Already in 1992 he headed the Committee for the Denationalization and De-Monopolization of Production of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration, and the following year became an advisor to Leonid Kuchma, the Prime Minister of Ukraine. In 1994 was Turchinov created the All-Ukrainian Union Gromada, which supported Leonid Kuchma in the presidential election. Then, in 2004, he became one of the leaders of the election headquarters of Viktor Yushchenko, and after electing the latter as president, he headed the Security Service of Ukraine. After the resignation of Yulia Tymoshenko from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine in September 2005, Turchinov also resigned as the head of the Ukrainian special services and focused on political activities in the framework of the election headquarters of the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc. In 2006 was He became a deputy to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In 2007 was Viktor Yushchenko appointed Oleksandr Turchynov Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. 19th of December 2007 Turchinov became the first vice-premier of Ukraine. Euromaidan became the “finest hour” of Turchinov’s bureaucrat. He took the side of the protesters and February 22 2014 was elected Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. On the same day, the Verkhovna Rada announced the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, after which the duties of the head of the Ukrainian state were assigned to Oleksandr Turchynov. 27 February 2014, Alexander Turchinov signed a decree appointing Arseniy Yatsenyuk as head of the government of Ukraine. Thus, formally, it was Turchinov who put Yatsenyuk to the position that he still holds at the present time. It was during those months when Turchinov was in charge of the Ukrainian state that events in the Donbas began, and the Crimea became part of the Russian Federation. For this, many Ukrainian politicians demanded that Turchinov leave the post of acting president of Ukraine. Naturally, these events were reflected in the degree of confidence Turchinov from the American leadership. They saw in him a frankly weak leader who had not been able to quickly cope with the difficulties that had arisen. 7 June 2014 of the year, after the last early presidential elections in Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov handed over the authority of President Petro Poroshenko, who won the election. 16 December 2014 of the year Petro Poroshenko appointed Oleksandr Turchynov to the post of Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. It is Alexander Turchinov who is one of the key figures responsible for the bloodshed unleashed in the Donbas. By the way, his religious metamorphosis also serves as an excellent addition to the political evolution of Turchinov. So, in 1993-1994. Turchinov, who was then working as an economic adviser to Leonid Kuchma, including who was responsible for relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, was baptized according to the Orthodox rite. However, already in 1999 He became a member of the Word of Life Baptist Church. Moreover, he became a preacher and pastor in this Protestant organization. At the end of February 2016 it became known that a number of Ukrainian parties could support Turchinov’s candidacy. At the same time, the Ukrainian press openly writes that in case of appointment to the post of prime minister of the country, Turchinov can plunge Ukraine into the abyss of a bloody war, which is fraught with the destruction of the Ukrainian state. The fact is that Turchinov is one of the few ardent supporters of the military solution of the “Crimean Question”, that is, he is in favor of aggression against Russia in order to seize the Crimean peninsula.
Yatsenyuk will be gone soon
The other day, former US ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Pifer on his Twitter announced that he was preparing the appointment of a new head of the Ukrainian government in Kiev. Peifer was the first high-ranking US official to confirm the information spread among the journalistic community about personnel changes in the Ukrainian government at the highest level. Meanwhile, no one is surprised, why the American diplomat, and not, say, a Ukrainian politician, makes such statements? Moreover, Pifer's post on the social network even seems quite natural, it would be surprising if a Ukrainian, rather than an American official, spoke out with a prediction of imminent changes in the leadership of Ukraine. This is another confirmation of the "external management" in Ukraine by the US State Department. Most likely, the American leadership purposefully authorized this “stuffing” - both to prepare the public, and in order to emphasize to the Kiev leaders their real place. After all, it is no secret that the policy of the Ukrainian government has recently begun to cause a certain discontent with its overseas owners. Washington’s skepticism about the policy of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk began to talk and write a lot in the spring of 2015. It is clear that in Ukraine, Yatsenyuk is unhappy with the majority of the country's population, and even the radical nationalists who played a key role on Euromaidan and in punitive operations in the Donbas. But the opinion of the Ukrainian population does not affect the appointment or dismissal of the Ukrainian prime ministers. But much more important is the attitude to the figure of the Prime Minister by the US State Department. If the State Department approves, then sit the minister in his chair until he loses approval. If he does not approve, then his days as the head of the government will be numbered in the foreseeable future.
The fiasco in the Donbas and the almost complete failure of the “reform policy” were the main reasons for dissatisfaction with the activities of the Yatsenyuk government by the American leadership. Initially, American leaders were counting on bringing the Ukrainian economy, law enforcement agencies and state authorities of Ukraine into a state that satisfies US interests. It was for this purpose that it was intended to carry out “reforms” - that is, a radical reorganization of a significant part of the public life of Ukraine to the standards of the American satellites. However, in March, 2015 began to raise questions to Arseniy Yatsenyuk about the extremely slow implementation of reforms.
Failure of reforms
One of the first and most notable areas of activity of the Ukrainian government, where the complete failure of the reform policy is evident, is the modernization of the Ukrainian armed forces. As you know, Ukraine approached the Maidan with extremely weak armed forces, which have undergone numerous reductions. President Viktor Yanukovych abolished universal military duty in Ukraine, and the country's army was supposed to be fully contractual. The weakness of the Ukrainian armed forces did not allow them to react either to the reunification of the Crimea with Russia, or to the events that began in the spring of 2014 in the New Russia. Only with the start of the notorious “anti-terrorist operation” in the Donbass, the new Ukrainian authorities attended to strengthening the armed forces, as they saw that the National Guard detachments and volunteer battalions, staffed by activists of nationalist organizations, could not cope with the resistance of the Novorossia militia. However, the strengthening of the armed forces of the country immediately went only along the line of increasing numbers. To achieve this goal, the Ukrainian leadership has taken several waves of mobilization. As a result of the mass recruitment of completely unprepared for the service of people - yesterday's peasants and workers, and of completely different ages - from 18 to 65 years, many Ukrainian army units soon began to make a tragicomic impression. In fact, they were a typical "cannon fodder", devoid of the necessary clothing and weapons. Complete lack of preparation of personnel, lack of professionalism of officers (the lack of junior and middle-level commanders became one of the most important problems for the Ukrainian army) led to massive losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during the operation in the Donbas.
Naturally, such a depressing state of the armed forces of Ukraine could not please the overseas patrons of the Kiev government. Washington demanded from Kiev the speedy implementation of military reform and giving the Ukrainian army more or less combat-worthy character. Officially, these requirements were expressed in the form of advice to the Ukrainian leadership to transfer the armed forces to NATO standards. But it turned out that due to the large-scale corruption in the armed forces and the lack of professionalism of their commanding staff, from junior officers to the highest level, it is not possible to carry out the rapid implementation of military reform. The head of the Armed Forces Committee of the US House of Representatives, U. Thornberry, in March 2015 met with the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, at which he specifically drew attention to the inhibition of military reform in Ukraine. According to the congressman, the United States could more actively support Ukraine if the Ministry of Defense of the country really were going to carry out military reform. Thornberry also stressed that the American leadership doubts whether it is possible to entrust American weapons to the military personnel of the Ukrainian armed forces - after all, according to reports of American advisers and instructors, the majority of Ukrainian military do not know how to handle small arms. weapons.
At the beginning of March 2016, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Stepan Poltorak at NATO Headquarters announced the draft Strategic Defense Bulletin of Ukraine, according to which the Ministry of Defense is planned to be reformed by the end of 2018, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine - by the end of 2020. This plan was prepared with the participation of NATO advisers, however, at the same time, while the North Atlantic Alliance is not going to admit Ukraine into its membership. According to the leadership of NATO, the country is not ready for this either politically, militarily or economically.
Another area in which the reform was supposed to be - the energy sector. The American leadership planned a quick and effective reform of the energy complex of Ukraine with the goal of freeing the country from its strong dependence on Russia. However, although the Ukrainian leadership promised to reform the energy sector, soon the American experts were able to see that the Ukrainian authorities not only could not implement the reform of the energy sector, but did not even bother to form projects and programs. Meanwhile, considerable funds were allocated to the development of these programs by the US departments. It turns out that in Ukraine they were simply plundered. The high level of corruption has become one of the main reasons for criticism of the Ukrainian government by the American leadership. Despite the fact that on Euromaidan President Yanukovych and the government of Azarov were accused of corruption, after the seizure of power in Kiev, opposition supporters of corruption in the activities of government structures did not become less. Moreover, they talk about a significant increase in corruption, permeating literally all the structures of state power in modern Ukraine. Corruption covers all levels of the Ukrainian authorities, all ministries. The reform of the civil service had no real impact on the situation in the sphere of corruption and nepotism. Although the principle of filling civil service posts on a competitive basis was introduced, which was supposed to prevent the sale of government posts or the assignment of relatives or friends to them, the Ukrainian political system immediately adapted to the new personnel policy. Even under competitive selection conditions, officials manage to organize appointments for the positions of the right people. Not led to any results and judicial reform.
Washington criticizes
American politicians began to criticize the behavior of the Ukrainian government a year after the victory of the Maidan. So, back in February, 2015, the US ambassador to Ukraine, J. Payette, raised the question of the survival of the Ukrainian statehood itself in the context of further inhibition of reforms or the preservation of a corrupt system. Of course, Ukrainian officials do not want, and can not conduct their business differently. After all, their career development took place in an atmosphere of corruption, nepotism, cronyism, mutual informal agreements. On the other hand, Ukrainian leaders are well aware of the danger of American and European dissatisfaction with their policies. If this discontent reaches a certain point, then the United States, without any doubt, will easily replace the entire leadership of Ukraine. By means of a new Maidan or simply a denial of support, the next change of power in the country will be carried out, and what is waiting for the current leaders of the state and officials of lower rank after that, we can only guess. Therefore, the Ukrainian leadership has resorted to the practice of building “Potemkin villages” - programs and projects are being developed with loud names and content, convincing of the reformist and democratic orientation of the current Ukrainian regime. With the help of “blowing dust in the eyes,” Ukrainian leaders have so far managed to maintain the support of the United States and the European Union. But, as evidenced by the events, this situation may end as soon as possible. This is evidenced by the growing demonstrative discontent of American politicians, and rallies of radical nationalists dissatisfied with the Yatsenyuk government in Kiev.
At the same time, the American leadership is very afraid that in case of further deterioration of the economic and political situation in Ukraine in the context of the government’s complete inability to at least somehow organize life in the country, the pro-American regime in Kiev may fall under the blows of the Ukrainian people themselves. And then it is completely possible that the new Maidan will bring to power those forces that are no longer determined to cooperate with the United States on the same scale. Especially if neighboring Russia can have a significant impact on the political moods of the protest masses. Therefore, the American leadership is urgently looking for ways out of this situation. On the one hand, the political impotence of the Ukrainian government does not make it possible to improve life in the country even with loans from the IMF and the International Bank, on the other hand the actual loss of Donbass, the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the country's complete economic collapse convince more and more Ukrainians that after Euromaidan, life has become much worse than during the reign of President Viktor Yanukovych. The situation is very dangerous for the American positions in Ukraine and the situation in Washington is well aware of this. Most likely, in order to keep the situation under control, Washington will undertake a tried and true move - the search for a “goat (or goats) scapegoat” in the top Ukrainian leadership. It is on this “scapegoat” that all the numerous mistakes of the Kiev regime will be imposed, they will declare him an insolvent leader and will be dismissed. Such a figure, apparently, is still the current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. It is he who is criticized by nationalist organizations accusing him of conducting inefficient economic policies and indecisive actions in the Donbas, and American leaders who blame him for slowing down the “reform policy”. During a visit to Kiev, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland also spoke of the absence of a real “reform policy” in Ukraine. According to several sources in the media, Victoria Nuland told Arseniy Yatsenyuk that he was to become a scapegoat, which all political opponents and critics would blame for the failure of reform policies. Nuland also called default the only possible means of resolving the current economic situation in Ukraine.
US citizen for the premier?
According to preliminary data, in the near future, Arseniy Yatsenyuk will be forced to resign. He should be replaced as head of the Ukrainian government Natalia Yaresko, who holds the post of finance minister of the country. It was her name that the former United States Ambassador to Kiev Stephen Peifer named a likely candidate for the post of prime minister of the country. Nataliya Yaresko is a very significant figure on the political Olympus of modern Ukraine. Not so long ago, her name was Natalie Ann Yaresko. She was born 24 on April 1965 in Elmhurst, Illinois, USA. Accordingly, by birth is a citizen of the United States of America. Parents Yaresko were immigrants from Ukraine. In 1987, Natalie Yaresko received a bachelor of science degree in accounting, graduating from De Paul Private University in Chicago. On this education Yaresko not over - in 1989, she became a master of public administration at the School of Public Administration. Kennedy (Harvard University USA). In 1989, 24-year-old Yaresko was hired by the Department of the European Union in the Department of Europe and Canada at the US Department of State. So the young daughter of Ukrainian immigrants became a “Sovietologist” - a specialist in economic issues at the US State Department. Her career was quite successful. In 1991-1992 she worked as an adviser to the Economic Bureau of the US State Department, and already in 1992 she became the head of the economic department of the US Embassy in Ukraine. From that moment on, her life was inextricably linked with the US-Ukrainian relationship. At the embassy, Yaresko worked until 1995, and in thirty years transferred to the Direct Investment Fund in the Small and Medium Business Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), where she became regional investment manager in the CIS countries. In 2001, she led WNISEF. As is known, this fund was created by the decision of the US Congress, and its funding is provided by the US Agency for International Development. At the same time, Yaresko was also active in the business, having founded the managing company Horizon Capital in 2006. Shares in the companies Agro-Soyuz, Vitmark-Ukraine, Datagroup, Inkerman and a number of other enterprises and organizations were under the control of this company.
The Orange Revolution gave Yaresko the green light for a career in the Ukrainian leadership — she became a member of the Foreign Investment Advisory Council under President Yushchenko and the Advisory Committee of the Ukrainian Foreign Investment Promotion Center under the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. But the real turning point in the work biography of this American citizen became Euromaidan. After the overthrow of President Yanukovych and the establishment in Kiev of a pro-American government, Yaresko, among many other foreigners who were management specialists, was invited to the government of Ukraine. The first such initiative was made by Andrei Sadovy, who offered Yaresko to the post of first deputy prime minister in the government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Sadovych described Yaresko as a patriot of Ukraine and a person who is well aware of Ukrainian politics and economics. In principle, about the second point, Sadoviy may have been right - yet Yaresko spent the last twenty years in Ukraine as an employee of various American organizations. Only one moment interfered - Yaresko remained a citizen of the United States of America, but for the Kiev government, which invited many foreign citizens to important government posts at the initiative of the USA, this was not an obstacle.
2 December 2014, the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko granted Natalia Yaresko Ukrainian citizenship, after which she received the formal right to occupy leadership positions in the public service of the country. After that, Natalia Yaresko was appointed Minister of Finance of Ukraine. Almost immediately after the appointment, she explained that the cause of the economic crisis experienced by modern Ukraine is the planned economy and the communist system in its recent past. Among Ukrainian statesmen, Yaresko is considered one of the main promoters of the “course of economic reforms.” It is in this capacity that she always remained among the possible candidates for the post of prime minister of the country in the event of Arseny Yatsenyuk’s departure. Of course, that Yaresko is a figure representing the interests of the United States in Ukraine. Therefore, the more dissatisfaction with the policy of the government of Arseniy Yatsenyuk grows in Washington, the more likely are Natalia Yaresko’s chances of leading the Ukrainian government. True, in 2015, she stated that if she received an offer to head the Ukrainian government, she would reject it. But it is quite clear that if this offer in the form of an order comes from Washington, she is unlikely to refuse. The American leadership cannot fail to regard the American citizen Yaresko as one of the most obedient and suitable figures to fill the post of prime minister. It is not by chance that she is called the “Special Forces of Economic Reforms”, for which the US State Department is counting less and less on the implementation of the Yatsenyuk government. In any case, Yaresko is among the most “own” people in the Ukrainian government and if she is appointed to the post of prime minister of Ukraine, this will mean that Washington has finally become disillusioned with the ability to govern Ukraine with the help of local officials and politicians who come from Ukraine. oligarchies and nationalist parties.
Former head of Vinnitsa - another candidate
According to the Financial Times, more than ten days ago, Yaresko received an offer to head the Ukrainian government - not only from the Washington Regional Committee, but also from Ukrainian top officials - President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. In the Verkhovna Rada, the support of Yaresko will be provided by the deputies of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko and the Popular Front. Natalia Yaresko has already started recruiting the staff of the future government of Ukraine, but then negotiations on the most important points of the future government’s activities have reached an impasse. As a result, the course of the appointment of Yaresko to the post of prime minister of the country was temporarily suspended. In addition, according to the publication, Petro Poroshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk have begun to search for an alternative candidate, who can also lead the government of the country. As such, in particular, is considered Vladimir Groysman. Unlike Natalia Yaresko, Groisman is a native of Ukraine, a young and, as it is believed, a promising representative of the modern Ukrainian political elite. Vladimir Borisovich Groisman was born in 1978 in Vinnitsa, on January 20 he was just 38 years old. Vladimir Groysman's father Boris Isaakovich Groisman in 2002-2006. was a deputy of the Vinnitsa city council. If you believe the official biography of Vladimir Groisman, then he began his career as early as 14 years, and not by anyone, but as a mechanic at the Shkolnik enterprise. His career as a locksmith developed so well that two years later, at sixteen years old, Groisman was appointed commercial director of the small enterprise OKO, and in November 1994 was appointed commercial director at Yunost, which was led by father Boris Isaakovich. From that time until 2005, Groisman worked in various commercial organizations - of course, in senior positions. Higher education received, as they say, without interrupting director responsibilities. So, in the 2003 year, in the 25 years, Vladimir Groysman graduated from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management with a degree in Jurisprudence. In 2010, he earned a master’s degree in Social Development Management at the National Academy of Public Administration under the President of Ukraine.
In addition to commercial activities, early Vladimir Groysman engaged in politics. Already at the age of 24, in the 2002 year, he became the youngest member of the Vinnitsa city council. In this capacity, he was at the post of deputy head of the permanent deputy commission of the city council on human rights, rule of law, parliamentary activity and ethics. In 2005, Vladimir Groysman was elected to the post of secretary of the Vinnitsa city council and was appointed acting head of Vinnitsa. 26 March 2006. 28-year-old Groisman was elected the mayor of Vinnitsa, and at the next election of 31 on October 2010 was re-elected to this post — this time from the Conscience of Ukraine political party. For Groysman then voted 77,8% of voters in Vinnitsa. The next step in the political career of Groisman opened after Euromaidan. Already 27 February 2014, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk invited Groysman to take the post of deputy prime minister and, at the same time, minister of regional development, construction and housing and communal services. Like Yaresko, he had to take up reforms, in particular - the "decentralization of power." The concept of reforming local self-government and the territorial organization of power in Ukraine, developed on the initiative of Groisman, suggested a significant expansion of the powers of local self-government bodies and the reorganization of Ukrainian local self-government bodies according to the Polish model. 27 November 2014 Vladimir Groysman was elected chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, thus becoming the third person in the official hierarchy of the Ukrainian state. By the way, in the 2014 year, even before being elected chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, Volodymyr Groysman almost became the Prime Minister of Ukraine. When Arseniy Yatsenyuk 24 July 2014 announced his resignation from the post of prime minister of the country, it was Vladimir Groysman who was appointed acting prime minister. But after the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine 31 July 2014 did not accept the resignation of Yatsenyuk, the appointment of Groisman to the post of prime minister was canceled.
Disputes around the premier
At present, the question of appointing Groisman to the post of head of the Ukrainian government has again arisen. Groysman himself does not exclude the possibility that he agrees to take the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine. However, the probability of his appointment is still not rated very high. So, it is known that the candidacy of Natalia Yaresko is viewed by the American leadership and the world financial community as significantly more acceptable. Firstly, Natalia Yaresko is more closely connected with the American leadership, has extensive experience in financial and economic work. Secondly, the United States and international financial circles are more inclined to trust Yaresko as a person who is able to carry out the economic transformations necessary for Washington in Ukraine. As for the candidate Groisman, then it is considered as a weaker one. Groisman, in the opinion of American leaders, is more dependent on the influence of the Ukrainian oligarchs and President Petro Poroshenko, respectively - will be less independent. There is a very high probability that Natalia Yaresko herself will refuse to work under the leadership of Vladimir Groysman as minister. That is, it will leave the ranks of the Ukrainian government, and this will inevitably lead to a number of serious systemic problems. In particular, international investors may refuse to work with the new Ukrainian government of Groisman, and then support for Ukraine from international financial organizations will be suspended. For a weak Ukrainian economy, this can be a fatal blow.
Do not call us a Pole?
On Natalia Yaresko, the list of likely “Varyags” who can be invited to the post of head of the Ukrainian government does not end there. So, it is known that in December 2015, the Ukrainian politicians representing the Petro Poroshenko Bloc, began negotiations with Leszek Balcerowicz, a Polish politician and economist. The negotiations were conducted by the people's deputy from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc faction, Igor Gryniv, known as the longtime confidant of the Ukrainian president. Leszek Balcerowicz, 69-year-old Ph.D., is considered the author of the Polish “shock therapy” - the transition from a planned economy to a “free market”. Back in 1978-1981. Balcerowicz led a team of scientists who were involved in developing a project for economic reforms in Poland. At about the same time, he became close to the Solidarity trade union, and in 1981 he left the Polish United Workers' Party (PUWP). In August, 1989, at the suggestion of Lech Walesa, Balcerowicz became part of the first government of the Polish Solidarity. 12 September 1989 Balcerowicz was appointed vice-premier and finance minister in the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki, starting to organize economic reforms in Poland. According to Balcerowicz’s program, Poland’s transition to a market economy was to be carried out in a short time. It was supposed to raise market prices, reduce state budget expenditures, limit monetary incomes, introduce partial internal reversibility of zloty for Polish enterprises. The reforms undertaken by Balcerovich provoked criticism from numerous opponents, and in 1991 he left the government of Poland. Since then, Balcerowicz has been engaged in teaching and research activities, including at Brown University and the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington (USA). By the way, as an economic adviser, Leszek Balcerovich also participated in the implementation of market reforms in Russia, so he can be considered directly involved in the “shock therapy” in our country. In 1997, Leszek Balcerowicz returned to the Polish government, formed by Jerzy Buzek, and took over as deputy prime minister and minister of finance. He resigned from these posts in June 2000, and was soon appointed to the post of chairman of the National Bank of Poland, which he remained in until the 2007 year. He also advised Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze on economic issues.
With such a biography, Balcerovich, as one would expect, has a certain prestige in the circles of the “marketeers” and enjoys the sympathies of the Western states. When Euromaidan took place in Ukraine, Balzerovich began to show great interest in political events in this country. In particular, he expressed the opinion that economic reforms in Ukraine could be carried out in the conditions of the war in the Donbas, moreover, he called the war a “shock therapy” that would contribute to the improvement of the Ukrainian economy. According to representatives of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko, Baltserovich enjoys the support of the West, the sympathy of the “Ukrainian middle class”, and therefore is capable of “clearing the stables of party appointees”. Balcerowicz is convinced that Ukraine needs a “comprehensive and fast therapy”, which will allow for the privatization and de-monopolization of the Ukrainian economy. Balcerowicz considers the “external liberalization” of Ukrainian politics to be an important condition for economic reforms and emphasizes that modern Ukraine has political rather than economic problems. Liberalization will increase competition and, in the opinion of the economist, the “recovery” of the Ukrainian economy.
Naturally, the rumors about the possible appointment of the Polish economist to the post of prime minister of Ukraine, excited the media. The journalists appealed to the former Deputy Prime Minister of Poland and the author of the Polish “shock therapy” for clarification. However, Leszek Balcerowicz replied that he did not want to become a Ukrainian Prime Minister, but fully allowed for himself the opportunity to become a “strategic advisor” to the Ukrainian government on economic issues. According to Balcerovich, the person speaking Ukrainian should become the Prime Minister of Ukraine. At the same time, he expressed willingness to participate in the conduct of economic reforms in the country.
Turchinov - a nominal character
Finally, another candidate for the post of prime minister is Alexander Turchinov. It was he who was the first Ukrainian and. President after the coup in Kiev and the removal from office of President Viktor Yanukovych. The life path of 52-year-old Turchinov is impressive. In Soviet times - studying at the Dnepropetrovsk Metallurgical Institute, with active Komsomol activities. Then - work at the factory and, from 1987 to 1990. - the post of secretary of the Komsomol district committee, head of the agitation and propaganda department of the Dnipropetrovsk regional Komsomol committee. In this capacity, Turchinov participated in the activities of the Democratic platform in the CPSU, for which he was expelled from the party. From that time began the next, “market” milestone in the biography of Turchinov. Already in 1992 he headed the Committee for the Denationalization and De-Monopolization of Production of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration, and the following year became an advisor to Leonid Kuchma, the Prime Minister of Ukraine. In 1994 was Turchinov created the All-Ukrainian Union Gromada, which supported Leonid Kuchma in the presidential election. Then, in 2004, he became one of the leaders of the election headquarters of Viktor Yushchenko, and after electing the latter as president, he headed the Security Service of Ukraine. After the resignation of Yulia Tymoshenko from the post of Prime Minister of Ukraine in September 2005, Turchinov also resigned as the head of the Ukrainian special services and focused on political activities in the framework of the election headquarters of the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc. In 2006 was He became a deputy to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. In 2007 was Viktor Yushchenko appointed Oleksandr Turchynov Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. 19th of December 2007 Turchinov became the first vice-premier of Ukraine. Euromaidan became the “finest hour” of Turchinov’s bureaucrat. He took the side of the protesters and February 22 2014 was elected Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. On the same day, the Verkhovna Rada announced the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, after which the duties of the head of the Ukrainian state were assigned to Oleksandr Turchynov. 27 February 2014, Alexander Turchinov signed a decree appointing Arseniy Yatsenyuk as head of the government of Ukraine. Thus, formally, it was Turchinov who put Yatsenyuk to the position that he still holds at the present time. It was during those months when Turchinov was in charge of the Ukrainian state that events in the Donbas began, and the Crimea became part of the Russian Federation. For this, many Ukrainian politicians demanded that Turchinov leave the post of acting president of Ukraine. Naturally, these events were reflected in the degree of confidence Turchinov from the American leadership. They saw in him a frankly weak leader who had not been able to quickly cope with the difficulties that had arisen. 7 June 2014 of the year, after the last early presidential elections in Ukraine, Oleksandr Turchynov handed over the authority of President Petro Poroshenko, who won the election. 16 December 2014 of the year Petro Poroshenko appointed Oleksandr Turchynov to the post of Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. It is Alexander Turchinov who is one of the key figures responsible for the bloodshed unleashed in the Donbas. By the way, his religious metamorphosis also serves as an excellent addition to the political evolution of Turchinov. So, in 1993-1994. Turchinov, who was then working as an economic adviser to Leonid Kuchma, including who was responsible for relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, was baptized according to the Orthodox rite. However, already in 1999 He became a member of the Word of Life Baptist Church. Moreover, he became a preacher and pastor in this Protestant organization. At the end of February 2016 it became known that a number of Ukrainian parties could support Turchinov’s candidacy. At the same time, the Ukrainian press openly writes that in case of appointment to the post of prime minister of the country, Turchinov can plunge Ukraine into the abyss of a bloody war, which is fraught with the destruction of the Ukrainian state. The fact is that Turchinov is one of the few ardent supporters of the military solution of the “Crimean Question”, that is, he is in favor of aggression against Russia in order to seize the Crimean peninsula.
- P P 'SЊSЏ RџRѕR "RѕRЅSЃRєRёR№
- http://www.mediaport.ua/,
Information