Poroshenko loses control: Will Ukraine come under external administration?

Charles Newman
Jul 24, 2017 · 4 min read

Three years ago the organizers of Ukrainian revolution, the Euromaidan, argued against corruption and oligarchs, promised economic reforms as well as European integration and accession to NATO. The result of revolution was the 2014 presidential election that made Petro Poroshenko Ukraine’s President and cleared the way for new political elite into power. Little time is left before the next presidential election take place in Ukraine and today is the right moment to sum up the results of Poroshenko’s and his team’s rule.

Following the first months of Euromaidan the reforms were launched under pressure from the Western lenders, mainly the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, which helped Ukraine’s economy to record a growth rate of 2% in 2016 — for the first time in four years. Another positive factor was high grain harvest due to the good weather conditions. However, these achievements are unimpressive since the ruling elite of Ukraine, headed by Poroshenko, returned to vague financial schemes, systemic corruption and intervention in the economy. It is hardly surprising that in this case Ukraine’s President is actively looking for the ways to hold down his positions. Unfortunately that happens not through reforms, but through unproductive negotiations with Washington and Brussels.

In June 2017 President of Ukraine visited the USA and had a brief meeting with President Donald Trump. The White House did not lay down a red carpet in front of Poroshenko and the meeting, overall, was rather formal. Ukraine’s leader left Washington empty-handed aside from Poroshenko’s traditional words of nation-building and territorial integrity support, pressure on Russia, financial and military aid.

Shortly after Poroshenko’s trip to the US, the State Secretary Rex Tillerson visited Kyiv and had a meeting with the Ukrainian President, that resulted in no breakthrough making it a pro forma visit as well. Poroshenko once again was told about the necessity of reforms and corruption fighting. It is worth mentioning that the Obama Administration demanded exactly the same from Ukraine’s President. Poroshenko’s failure during both the visit to Washington and negotiations with Tillerson did not dent his enthusiasm and he turned his eyes to Europe.

However, during the recent Ukraine-EU Summit in Kyiv, Europe gave Poroshenko a cold shower. The head of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker called for strengthening the fight against corruption while the European Council President Donald Tusk spoke of overcoming controversies among Ukraine’s political elite, because only after these goals are achieved, the investors may take interest in Ukraine and the EU will continue giving Ukraine financial aid. Poroshenko agreed with every word, asked them to support the reforms (which without fighting corruption are absolutely useless as we know) and looked interested only when they mentioned financial aid which always disappears in the pockets of corruptionists and oligarchs. Besides Poroshenko’s traditional demands to intensify pressure on Russia, support Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity he also asked to add to the Summit’s communique a phrase that the European Union “acknowledges Ukraine’s European aspirations.” Eventually EU-Ukraine Summit ended without any statement and Poroshenko described the fact as insignificant. Yet, it means the crisis between the EU and Poroshenko is deeper than it may seem at first. Unlike the USA, Europe has made it clear that everyone is tired of Poroshenko and his empty commitments.

The problem of the Ukrainian President is that he thought he could become a valued player on the world political arena or at least in its European part. The ambitions would be lofty, if it were not for the pathetical stupidity of the Ukrainian authorities that have failed to implement any reforms so far.

Competence of Ukraine’s military authorities also raises a lot of questions. It’s unlikely that Washington failed to notice the recent incidents when two colonels of intelligence from the Armed Forces of Ukraine blew themselves up and afterwards Ukraine’s nationalists accused the US of providing poor training at its military bases where the two officers took courses. The White House is probably discussing now potential candidates to replace the incumbent President of Ukraine, which will be capable of launching reforms and pulling the country out of Poroshenko’s rat race. More than likely, the EU thinks the same because no one in Europe is ready to finance “Ukraine’s European aspirations” which have remained “aspirations” for the last three years in hopes to get another financial transfer.

Well, one can hardly imagine what alternative the US and Europe will prepare for Ukraine. Chances are high that it will be a person that will satisfy both Washington and Brussels. Maybe, it will be Yulia Tymoshenko who has supported reforms, fought against corruption and stood for Eurointegration since the beginning of her career, but has had no chance to make it work in Ukraine. The other probable contender, backed by the USA and who also claimed about his readiness to take reins, is Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, the former head of the Security Service of Ukraine. American and European advisers will be ready to assist both candidates. As for Poroshenko, his credit of trust has depleted long time ago and there is no chance he can bank upon US and European support.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade