For Ukraine faction decides to remind us of its existence
According a press release the For Ukraine parliamentary fraction distributed before its news conference, domestic political forces are divided into three groups: oligarchic, ones set up with administrative backing, and those “uncontrollable by oligarchs as well as by the powers that be.” Without doubt, the FU founding fathers regard themselves as members of the latter group. This was evidenced by the absence of Television cameras in the Cultural Fund’s room hosting the conference — otherwise TV coverage would have conveyed to the general public the awe-inspiring image of this political group. In any case, the organizing committee attributed the cameras’ absence to the fact that “oligarchs are in complete control of television in this country.”
Six politicians — Borys Oliynyk, Mykhailo Syrota, Stepan Khmara, Ivan Burdak, Yuri Karmazin, and Yaroslav Fedoryn — joined under the banner of what is described as a popular-patriotic association called For Ukraine, geared to crowding all those “oligarchs” out of their high offices, because such persons are greatly damaging the interests of the state, the implication being such characters are not for but AGAINST UKRAINE. The said six politicians, along with Yuri Buzduhan joining his “non-united” Social Democratic Party to FU, were perfectly aware of their political outsider status, a fact that became obvious during the news conference. The parties led by Syrota, Khmara, and Karmazin failed to play any significant important role in the political arena; Burdak’s and Fedoryn’s parties are little known, contrary to their leaders’ assurances. For Ukraine is a very good title, no doubt, with all its overtones concerning national identity and patriotic spirit. Yet it has not made this association any better off politically. As for Communist Oliynyk, he says his membership is primarily Ukrainian, which makes one wonder, considering that contemporary Communists have shown enviable discipline.
There was little FU could offer except their motley membership and that they were real patriots opposed to all those oligarchs. Mr. Fedoryn declared he was for Yushchenko’s Cabinet; Karmazin said he was, too, but with reservations. Mr. Burdak said he had fifteen thousand fellow party members and that he had first tried to create a popular front, not FU. Mr. Khmara pointed out that the nationalists were not as black as they were painted, and that, by and large, they looked like disunited Social Democrats. Mr. Buzduhan also tried to say something memorable, historically, but he had to deliver his talk standing (in view of his age, inferior to that of all the other political figures, of course). Mr. Syrota promised to combat all those Mafia structures most resolutely, so all could be eventually crowded out of their offices. Borys Oliynyk — perhaps acting in what he saw as his superior position — described the oligarchs as a criminal International. Naturally, he said he would resolutely fight all those he considered non-Ukrainian. All six said they hoped another 20 political parties would shortly join FU. Logically, the remaining 80 parties stayed loyal to the oligarchs or authorities, meaning they did not quite fit into the FU pattern.
Whether these politicians are really determined to combat oligarchs was to be made clear after the journalists’ very first question: names of the oligarchs that had to be fought by the FU activists. The faction’s fathers proved to be real Ukrainian politicians and did not identify a single foe. Mr. Karmazin said one should pay close attention to the leadership of for “oligarchic” factions: SDPU(o), Rebirth of the Regions, Batkivshchyna, and Labor Ukraine. The rest were content sharing euphemisms and hinting at something “you know as well as we do.” Mr. Khmara, however, once again demonstrated his uncompromising stand and mentioned a name, using past tense, just in case: “So what if I once called Bakai a crook?”
Even as he said this all in the audience felt he had made the wrong statement. And the question whether FU regarded Yuliya Tymoshenko as an oligarch did not help. The charming lady turned out to be such a controversial figure that the opinions voiced proved polarized. The next question had to do with Leonid Kuchma. Not as an oligarch, God forbid! Journalists wanted to know whether the President supported FU. Once again each of the faction’s fathers replied in his own way, the overall impression being that although the chief executive was not the man they wanted to see in his position, “he knows that we exist,” and that he did not seem to mind. Eventually, it transpired that Leonid Kuchma ought to combat the oligarchs himself; actually, he was doing just that, albeit lacking decisiveness. This, naturally, implied that the President would never succeed unless effectively aided by FU. When asked about their prospects in the next elections, their answers showed that practically the only thing uniting them was the motto: For Ukraine! Attractive and inspiring as it is, it leaves no one under any obligations if worse comes to worst.
Apart from their stated struggle against oligarchs, a conspicuously abstract one, and their stated desire to set up regional coordinating councils where and whenever possible, along with a lawmakers’ group bearing the same name and a joint action plan, there was little the leaders of these obscure parties, Borys Oliynyk included, could offer. Naturally, their idea of saving Ukraine sounds very good, but the same idea can be proclaimed by a number of other current or coming politicians. The point is whether they will want to combine efforts with FU, for the latter lacks both funds (they can’t ask any of the accursed oligarchs for contributions) and any effective administrative resources.
