Home » Posts tagged 'Ukraine Crisis'
Tag Archives: Ukraine Crisis
John McCain Calls For A ‘Fundamental Reassessment’ Of U.S. Relations With Russia
John McCain Calls For A ‘Fundamental Reassessment’ Of U.S. Relations With Russia.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted that Russia would hold onto Crimea and called for a “fundamental reassessment” of America’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday.
McCain, who had recently returned from a trip to Ukraine, said Sunday’s referendum in Crimea on whether to split from Ukraine was “a bogus thing,” comparing it to the plebiscites held in the days of Hitler and Stalin. “It’s a done deal,” he said.
He supported economic sanctions as an important step in the U.S. response to Russia’s actions.
“Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country,” McCain told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s kleptocracy, it’s corruption, it’s a nation that’s really only dependent upon oil and gas for their economy.”
But he also said that wider action was necessary.
The U.S. has to “have a fundamental reassessment of our relationship with Vladimir Putin,” he said. “No more reset buttons, no more ‘Tell Vladimir I’ll be more flexible.’ Treat him for what he is. That does not mean the reignition of the Cold War. But it does mean treating him in the way that we understand an individual who believes in restoring the old Russian empire.”
Share this:
John McCain Calls For A 'Fundamental Reassessment' Of U.S. Relations With Russia
John McCain Calls For A ‘Fundamental Reassessment’ Of U.S. Relations With Russia.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) predicted that Russia would hold onto Crimea and called for a “fundamental reassessment” of America’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday.
McCain, who had recently returned from a trip to Ukraine, said Sunday’s referendum in Crimea on whether to split from Ukraine was “a bogus thing,” comparing it to the plebiscites held in the days of Hitler and Stalin. “It’s a done deal,” he said.
He supported economic sanctions as an important step in the U.S. response to Russia’s actions.
“Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country,” McCain told Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s kleptocracy, it’s corruption, it’s a nation that’s really only dependent upon oil and gas for their economy.”
But he also said that wider action was necessary.
The U.S. has to “have a fundamental reassessment of our relationship with Vladimir Putin,” he said. “No more reset buttons, no more ‘Tell Vladimir I’ll be more flexible.’ Treat him for what he is. That does not mean the reignition of the Cold War. But it does mean treating him in the way that we understand an individual who believes in restoring the old Russian empire.”
Share this:
Next Steps in the Ukraine Crisis | Jeffrey Sachs
Next Steps in the Ukraine Crisis | Jeffrey Sachs.
There is a stark and obvious asymmetry in the Ukraine crisis. Russia will use military force to get its way. The West will not and should not. There is no doubt that Russian militarized bullying can lead to the de facto division of Ukraine, an event that would be of grave long-term consequences not only for Russia and Ukraine but for the world. The practical question at hand is whether international law can still function to stop this from occurring. In my view, the answer is yes.
The problem with international law is that the great powers, including both the US and Russia, give it allegiance opportunistically, only when it is to their short-term convenience. The US launched the Iraq War against international law. The US has recently destabilized many regimes against international law that protect the sovereignty of UN member states. The US is supporting a violent insurgency in Syria to bring down the regime against international law.
Now it is Russia’s turn to violate international law. Russia’s actions in the Crimea are perfectly intelligible in terms of Russia’s interests and foreign policy traditions, but they are also clearly in violation of international law. Russia has high stakes in Ukraine, and the extra-constitutional toppling of Yanukovich was against Russian interests and provoked Russia’s response in Crimea. The West should acknowledge Russia’s valid economic and security concerns in Ukraine, but it should not accede to Russia’s unilateral and illegal actions in Crimea (and still less if they spread to Eastern Ukraine).
The most important governing law in this immediate case is both explicit and extremely important. It is the treaty-backed agreement reached by four powers in 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, known as “The Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation on Nuclear Weapons (NPT).” It is filed with the UN Security Council as S/1994/1399, on December 19, 1994.
The issue at hand in 1994 was as important as any issue of international law: the management of nuclear arms. Ukraine and Russia had just recently become independent after the demise of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Ukraine had inherited a nuclear arms stockpile. In the interest of nuclear non-proliferation and to prevent accidents, terrorism, or a nuclear showdown in the post-Soviet region, the US and Russia prevailed on Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons and hand them to Russia.
The quid pro quo, at stake today, was Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the assurance that it would remain sovereign and secure, including from Russia. As Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons and joined the NPT, Russia, the US, and UK, “reaffirmed their commitment … to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” Moreover, the parties reaffirmed:
their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
As for threats of energy cutoffs or other economic sanctions, the parties reaffirmed:
to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
Crucially, the memorandum made clear that the four parties (including Ukraine) would “consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.”
This international agreement is the basis for Russia to return to its base in Crimea, and for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. It is the guarantee of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is the bulwark against economic blackmail. In short, it is the place where peaceful nations must take their stand in the current crisis.
The United States should make the legal case, again and again, in the UN Security Council. It should explain the global agreements in detail to the American people, the UN member states, and the world. It should require that Russia explain its actions in light of its clear responsibilities to consult with Ukraine, not as a matter of good neighborliness, but as a matter of solemn international obligation.
There are three weaknesses in this approach. First, international law works slowly, while armaments and events move quickly. No doubt that is true. Second, and just as important, the US is a frequent violator of international law. Invoking it is a double-edged sword: Many US initiatives will be called into question (e.g. in Syria). Third, Russia is not especially lawyerly in its foreign policy. Yet its record of abiding by international treaties is actually much stronger than is widely known.
The West acted foolishly in Ukraine, thinking that a popular upheaval could sweep a pro-Russian government from power and yet not prompt a hostile Russian reaction. The EU was naïve in thinking it could spring Ukraine from Russian influence through a mere association agreement or a loan. Any government in Ukraine must pay attention to the security and economic interests of its powerful neighbor to the East. The West should not feed fantasies held by segments of Ukrainian society.
Yet the West should not accede to Russian demands. Upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty is not just about Ukraine. It is about the non-proliferation treaty itself, and global safety in a nuclear-armed world.
Yet there can be no military response from the West. Analogies to Munich 1938 are not correct. In a nuclear world, Russia will not invade the West nor can the West triumph militarily over Russia.
Similarly, sanctions will not play any real role except dig both sides deeper into confrontation. Visa restrictions are less than pin pricks, signs of silliness not policy. The UN Security Council should insist on reason from Russia, and West should insist on reason and moderation from Kiev.
All sides will lose in a deepening confrontation and horrible mistakes would be possible. Russia’s security interests should be respected, but Russia should abide by international law, and the US should do so in Syria and other areas of Russian concern. For the entire world, international law is the key to long-term survival. It may be a slender thread, but it is the only thread we have.
Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs
Share this:
Next Steps in the Ukraine Crisis | Jeffrey Sachs
Next Steps in the Ukraine Crisis | Jeffrey Sachs.
There is a stark and obvious asymmetry in the Ukraine crisis. Russia will use military force to get its way. The West will not and should not. There is no doubt that Russian militarized bullying can lead to the de facto division of Ukraine, an event that would be of grave long-term consequences not only for Russia and Ukraine but for the world. The practical question at hand is whether international law can still function to stop this from occurring. In my view, the answer is yes.
The problem with international law is that the great powers, including both the US and Russia, give it allegiance opportunistically, only when it is to their short-term convenience. The US launched the Iraq War against international law. The US has recently destabilized many regimes against international law that protect the sovereignty of UN member states. The US is supporting a violent insurgency in Syria to bring down the regime against international law.
Now it is Russia’s turn to violate international law. Russia’s actions in the Crimea are perfectly intelligible in terms of Russia’s interests and foreign policy traditions, but they are also clearly in violation of international law. Russia has high stakes in Ukraine, and the extra-constitutional toppling of Yanukovich was against Russian interests and provoked Russia’s response in Crimea. The West should acknowledge Russia’s valid economic and security concerns in Ukraine, but it should not accede to Russia’s unilateral and illegal actions in Crimea (and still less if they spread to Eastern Ukraine).
The most important governing law in this immediate case is both explicit and extremely important. It is the treaty-backed agreement reached by four powers in 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, known as “The Memorandum on Security Assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation on Nuclear Weapons (NPT).” It is filed with the UN Security Council as S/1994/1399, on December 19, 1994.
The issue at hand in 1994 was as important as any issue of international law: the management of nuclear arms. Ukraine and Russia had just recently become independent after the demise of the Soviet Union in December 1991. Ukraine had inherited a nuclear arms stockpile. In the interest of nuclear non-proliferation and to prevent accidents, terrorism, or a nuclear showdown in the post-Soviet region, the US and Russia prevailed on Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons and hand them to Russia.
The quid pro quo, at stake today, was Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons on the assurance that it would remain sovereign and secure, including from Russia. As Ukraine renounced nuclear weapons and joined the NPT, Russia, the US, and UK, “reaffirmed their commitment … to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.” Moreover, the parties reaffirmed:
their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
As for threats of energy cutoffs or other economic sanctions, the parties reaffirmed:
to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;
Crucially, the memorandum made clear that the four parties (including Ukraine) would “consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.”
This international agreement is the basis for Russia to return to its base in Crimea, and for Crimea to remain part of Ukraine. It is the guarantee of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is the bulwark against economic blackmail. In short, it is the place where peaceful nations must take their stand in the current crisis.
The United States should make the legal case, again and again, in the UN Security Council. It should explain the global agreements in detail to the American people, the UN member states, and the world. It should require that Russia explain its actions in light of its clear responsibilities to consult with Ukraine, not as a matter of good neighborliness, but as a matter of solemn international obligation.
There are three weaknesses in this approach. First, international law works slowly, while armaments and events move quickly. No doubt that is true. Second, and just as important, the US is a frequent violator of international law. Invoking it is a double-edged sword: Many US initiatives will be called into question (e.g. in Syria). Third, Russia is not especially lawyerly in its foreign policy. Yet its record of abiding by international treaties is actually much stronger than is widely known.
The West acted foolishly in Ukraine, thinking that a popular upheaval could sweep a pro-Russian government from power and yet not prompt a hostile Russian reaction. The EU was naïve in thinking it could spring Ukraine from Russian influence through a mere association agreement or a loan. Any government in Ukraine must pay attention to the security and economic interests of its powerful neighbor to the East. The West should not feed fantasies held by segments of Ukrainian society.
Yet the West should not accede to Russian demands. Upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty is not just about Ukraine. It is about the non-proliferation treaty itself, and global safety in a nuclear-armed world.
Yet there can be no military response from the West. Analogies to Munich 1938 are not correct. In a nuclear world, Russia will not invade the West nor can the West triumph militarily over Russia.
Similarly, sanctions will not play any real role except dig both sides deeper into confrontation. Visa restrictions are less than pin pricks, signs of silliness not policy. The UN Security Council should insist on reason from Russia, and West should insist on reason and moderation from Kiev.
All sides will lose in a deepening confrontation and horrible mistakes would be possible. Russia’s security interests should be respected, but Russia should abide by international law, and the US should do so in Syria and other areas of Russian concern. For the entire world, international law is the key to long-term survival. It may be a slender thread, but it is the only thread we have.
Follow Jeffrey Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffDSachs
Share this:
Vladimir Putin Ignores Ukraine Warnings From Obama
Vladimir Putin Ignores Ukraine Warnings From Obama.
WASHINGTON – One by one, President Barack Obama’s warnings to Russia are being brushed aside by President Vladimir Putin, who appears to only be speeding up efforts to formally stake his claim to Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
In the week since Obama first declared there would be “costs” if Putin pressed into Crimea, Russian forces have taken control of the region and a referendum has been scheduled to decide its future. Obama declared the March 16 vote a violation of international law, but in a region where ethnic Russians are the majority, the referendum seems likely to become another barrier to White House efforts to compel Putin to pull his forces from Crimea.
“The referendum vote is going to serve for Putin, in his mind, as the credibility and legitimacy of Russia’s presence there,” said Andrew Kuchins, the director of the Russia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
If Crimea votes to join Russia, the referendum could also put Obama in the awkward position of opposing the outcome of a popular vote.
The White House has tried to match Russia’s assertive posture by moving quickly to impose financial sanctions and travel bans on Russians and other opponents of Ukraine’s new central government. U.S. officials have also urgently tried to rally the international community around the notion that Russia’s military maneuvers in Crimea are illegal, even seeking support from China, Moscow’s frequent ally against the West.
“I am confident that we are moving forward together, united in our determination to oppose actions that violate international law and to support the government and people of Ukraine,” Obama said Thursday.
The European Union also announced Thursday that it was suspending talks with Putin’s government on a wide-ranging economic agreement and on granting Russian citizens visa-free travel within the 28-nation bloc — a long-standing Russian objective.
The White House says it still believes a diplomatic solution to the dispute with Russia is possible. Obama spoke with Putin for more than an hour Thursday, outlining a potential resolution that would include Russia pulling its forces back in Crimea and direct talks between the Kremlin and Ukraine.
But the fast-moving developments in Crimea may mean that the ultimate question facing Obama is not be what the U.S. can do to stop Russia from taking control of Crimea, but what kind of relationship Washington can have with Moscow should that occur.
White House advisers insist the U.S. could not go back to a business as usual approach with Russia if Moscow were to annex Crimea or recognize its independence. But that may be seen as empty threat to the Kremlin after the U.S., as well as Europe, did just that in 2008 after Russia recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two breakaway territories of Georgia. Russia also continues to keep military forces in both territories.
Privately, U.S. officials say Russia is running a similar playbook as it seeks to increase its influence in Crimea. And regional experts say Putin also appears to have a larger goal: influencing central government lawmakers in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv as they prepare for elections later this spring.
“It says to the Ukrainians, Don’t mess with me or I’ll slice off a finger,” said Matthew Rojansky, a Russia analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The months-long political crisis in Ukraine bubbled over late last month when protesters in Kyiv ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Amid the chaos, thousands of Russian forces took control of Crimea, a strategically important outpost in the Black Sea where Moscow has a military base.
The outcome of the Crimea referendum is not guaranteed, but there are clear indications the region will choose to side with Russia. About 60 per cent of Crimea’s population already identifies itself as Russian. And Crimea’s 100-seat parliament voted unanimously Thursday in favour of joining Russia.
The referendum had been scheduled for March 30, but was pushed up two weeks. And while the original vote was only on whether Crimea should get enhanced local powers, the peninsula’s residents will now also vote on whether to join Russia.
U.S. officials say they believe Putin was involved in orchestrating the referendum, though the Russian leader made no public statements about the planned vote. Earlier in the week, Putin said Russia had no intention of annexing Crimea, while insisting its population has the right to determine the region’s status in a referendum.
U.S. officials say they also see an unlikely ally emerging in China, which has frequently sided with Russia at the United Nations Security Council in blocking Western actions. While China has not condemned Russia’s actions outright, Beijing’s ambassador to the U.N. this week said it supported “noninterference” and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, spoke this week with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi. The White House said the officials agreed on the need for a peaceful resolution to the dispute that “upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
It appears unlikely China would actually take punitive actions against Russia. U.S. officials say Beijing is largely acting out of self-interest and appears to view the developments in Crimea through the prism of a nation that also has ethnic minorities who live in border regions and identify more closely with neighbouring countries.
Share this:
Ukraine Crisis Has Been Hiding In Plain Sight
Ukraine Crisis Has Been Hiding In Plain Sight.
Amid the standoff in Crimea, observations from this time lend some insight into the tangled roots of the crisis.
- Vladimir Putin has been hiding his intentions in plain sight. In an infamous 2005 speech, he declared that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the “major geopolitical disaster of the century.” But more to the point, he lamented the fact that “tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.” This was dog-whistle politics in Crimea, Eastern Ukraine and elsewhere. People were listening. Were we or the Europeans?
- Ukrainian culture is deep and distinctive. When I first traveled to Kiev and Odessa by way of Lvov as a student in the early 1970s, I got lecture after lecture about the universal genius of Taras Shevchenko, the Pushkin/Shakespeare of the country.
- Even so, independent Ukrainian nationhood has been more of a romantic dream than a political reality. Lithuanians, Poles and Russians have run the country for most of the last millennium. The main avenue of Kiev is lined with Soviet architecture. The Russians designed Ukraine’s most beautiful city, Odessa, as the St. Petersburg of the South. And it is.
- The crowd on the Maidan, according to an eye witness, was a brave, spontaneous and democratic one. It wasn’t manufactured by higher powers. “They just kept marching forward knowing they would get shot,” said the observer, an American who was in the city on business.
- But the new ruling group, empowered by the street protesters, won’t necessarily be a total contrast to the rapacious Yanukovych bunch. “Ukraine is basically tribes of billionaires fighting with each other over resources,” said a former U.S. government official who has worked for more than one tribe there as a political and security adviser.
- Historically and culturally, Crimea isn’t Ukraine. Sevastopol and Yalta, famous spots on the peninsula, feel Russian when you visit. Sevastapol is home to monuments –- literally and operationally –- to Russian military power: the old Russian fleet submarine bays; the dolphin training center (like a shabby Sea World); the stone markers representing Soviet battles in World War II. Yalta, an almost mystical name to the old Russian leisure class, is home to the dachas of famous Russian artists and the World War II meeting of Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. When you visit the Czarist summer home that played host to that meeting, there is nothing Ukrainian about the place in any sense.
- Ironically, and confusingly, old Kiev was the birthplace of Eastern Slavic culture and faith, the place where Vladimir I in 980 decided to adopt Christianity. Evidence of this history is on display to this day, in sacred catacombs that contain rows of skulls of monks from many centuries ago. Russia and Ukraine are yoked together: uncomfortably, sometimes violently, but inevitably.
- The definition of what is Ukraine has always been elastic around the edges. The first Ukrainian city I visited as a student in a Volkswagen bus in 1970 was Lvov, in what was then called “Western Ukraine.” It had the feel of an Austrian or Polish town, a Middle European city, and for good reason: at one time or another, it had belonged to both. (Under the Austrians it was known as Lemberg.)
- There is not the same tradition of American-style ideas of freedom — sometimes glorified in the abstract, and paid lip service to by Putin –- in Russia or Ukraine.When I was traveling on a post-graduate fellowship from the Watson Foundation, my carefully limited visa allowed me to drive to Kiev and Odessa, but not to deviate from that route in any way, for any length of time. Well, I wanted to visit Bila Treskva, an hour south of Kiev, where my mother’s ancestors were from. So I drove there without permission. It took the authorities only a few hours to find me, take me into custody and question me for a couple of hours. Before they let me go they made me sign a document admitting my malfeasance. It was in Russian.
Share this:
Ukraine Crisis Settlement Agreement Reached: Full Statement | Zero Hedge
Ukraine Crisis Settlement Agreement Reached: Full Statement | Zero Hedge.
An agreement in the Ukraine has just been signed, which sees early presidential elections. Europe is delighted by this development as confirmed by the following statement by the unelected Herman Van Rompuy:
Statement by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, on Ukraine
I welcome the agreement reached between the government and the opposition in Ukraine. The agreement is a necessary compromise in order to launch an indispensable political dialogue that offers the only democratic and peaceful way out of the crisis that has already caused too much suffering and bloodshed on all sides. It is now the responsibility of all parties to be courageous and turn words into deeds for the sake of Ukraine’s future. This agreement was facilitated by important work by the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Poland and the Special Representative of the President of Russia and based on the persistent efforts during the last two months by High Representative Ashton and Commissioner Füle. The EU continues to stand ready to support Ukraine.
The Foreign Ministers of Germany, France, and Poland said the following:
The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland welcome the signing of the agreement on the Settlement of the crisis in Ukraine, commend the parties for their courage and commitment to the agreement and call for an immediate end to all violence and confrontation in Ukraine.
And the full agreement is below (link):
Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine
Concerned with the tragic loss of life in Ukraine, seeking an immediate end of bloodshed and determined to pave the way for a political resolution of the crisis,
We, the signing parties, have agreed upon the following:
1. Within 48 hours of the signing of this agreement, a special law will be adopted, signed and promulgated, which will restore the Constitution of 2004 including amendments passed until now. Signatories declare their intention to create a coalition and form a national unity government within 10 days thereafter.
2. Constitutional reform, balancing the powers of the President, the government and parliament, will start immediately and be completed in September 2014.
3. Presidential elections will be held as soon as the new Constitution is adopted but no later than December 2014. New electoral laws will be passed and a new Central Election Commission will be formed on the basis of proportionality and in accordance with the OSCE & Venice commission rules.
4. Investigation into recent acts of violence will be conducted under joint monitoring from the authorities, the opposition and the Council of Europe.
5. The authorities will not impose a state of emergency. The authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence. The Parliament will adopt the 3rd amnesty, covering the same range of illegal actions as the 17th February 2014 law.
Both parties will undertake serious efforts for the normalisation of life in the cities and villages by withdrawing from administrative and public buildings and unblocking streets, city parks and squares.
Illegal weapons should be handed over to the Ministry of Interior bodies within 24 hours of the special law, referred to in point 1 hereof, coming into force. After the aforementioned period, all cases of illegal carrying and storage of weapons will fall under the law of Ukraine. The forces of authorities and of the opposition will step back from confrontational posture. The Government will use law enforcement forces exclusively for the physical protection of public buildings.
6. The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, Poland and the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation call for an immediate end to all violence and confrontation.
Kyiv, 21 February 2014
As a reminder, this won’t be the first “crisis settlement” agreement that will be promptly violated.
Share this:
Ukraine Crisis Talks: President Viktor Yanukovich Says Deal Reached, Vows To Form Unity Government (VIDEO/PHOTOS)
By Sabine Siebold and Natalia Zinets
KIEV, Feb 21 (Reuters) – Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovich announced concessions to his pro-European opponents on Friday, including a plan to hold early elections, but it was unclear whether the opposition would accept such an EU-mediated deal to end a violent crisis.
Russian-backed Yanukovich, under pressure to quit from mass demonstrations in central Kiev, promised a national unity government and constitutional change to reduce his powers, as well as the presidential polls.
He made the announcement in a statement on the presidential website without waiting for a signed agreement with opposition leaders after at least 77 people were killed in the worst violence since Ukraine became independent 22 years ago.
“There are no steps that we should not take to restore peace in Ukraine,” he said. “I announce that I am initiating early elections.”
EU mediators trying to broker a compromise said the opposition was seeking last minute changes, but they still expected a deal to be signed on Friday. There were fist fights in parliament as the political tension mounted.
The sprawling nation of 46 million with a shattered economy and endemic corruption is at the centre of a geopolitical tug-of-war between Russia and the European Union.
The German and Polish foreign ministers were in Kiev to promote a political compromise to end the bloodshed amid a stand-off between riot police and anti-government protesters who have occupied a central square for nearly three months.
Poland’s Radoslaw Sikorski tweeted that he and Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier were going to meet representatives of the street protesters to discuss the draft agreement.
Ukraine was at a “delicate moment”, Sikorski said on his Twitter account, adding in an apparent message to opposition leaders: “All sides need to remember that compromise means getting less than 100 percent.”
A table was set up for a signing ceremony in the presidency building with nameplates for three opposition leaders.
Whether grassroots activists who want Yanukovich out now will accept such a gradual transition was uncertain.
“This is just another piece of paper. We will not leave the barricades until Yanukovich steps down. That’s all people want,” said Anton Solovyov, 28, an IT worker protesting in the central Independence Square.
Earlier, police said in a statement that anti-government militants fired on security forces near the square, scene of a three-month-old protest vigil. However, there was no confirmation of such an incident and no report of casualties.
The square, known as Maidan or “Euro-Maidan”, appeared peaceful, with thousands of demonstrators chanting anti-government slogans interspersed with patriotic singing.
SCUFFLES IN PARLIAMENT
Armed police briefly entered the parliament building while lawmakers were holding an emergency session but they were quickly ejected, opposition leader Arseny Yatsenyuk said.
Ukraine faces the risk of civil war or even a break-up, and rage has spread even into the parliamentary chamber. Members exchanged punches when speaker Volodymyr Rybak tried to adjourn proceedings.
Opposition deputies were angered because it would mean delaying a possible vote on a resolution pressing for constitutional changes to restrict the president’s powers. The speaker left the chamber and debate continued.
If signed and implemented, the deal would be a setback for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has made tying Ukraine into a Moscow-led Eurasian Union a cornerstone of his efforts to reunite as much as possible of the former Soviet Union.
Putin appointed his own envoy to the talks at Yanukovich’s request on Thursday but it was not clear what role, if any, Russian officials had in the negotiations.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk cautioned that there was only a tentative accord so far. “The agreement has not yet been reached. What’s been settled is the agreement’s draft,” Tusk told reporters in Warsaw.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who was involved in the mediation effort earlier in the night, said the opposition needed to consult.
“The opposition wants to consult with some of its members, which is entirely understandable,” he told Europe 1 radio. “In this sort of situation, as long as things haven’t really been wrapped up, it’s important to remain very cautious.”
YANUKOVICH SUPPORT EBBS
After 48 hours in which the fate of Ukraine was fought out in the square, Yanukovich was rapidly losing support.
The deputy chief of the armed forces resigned and opposition deputies in parliament voted to overturn severe anti-terrorist laws enacted by Yanukovich’s government this month and ordered security forces back to barracks.
In another sign of the severity of the crisis, ratings agency Standard & Poor’s cut Ukraine’s credit rating for the second time in three weeks on Friday, citing the increased risk of default.
S&P said latest developments in the crisis made it less likely that Ukraine would receive desperately needed Russian aid. Ukraine cancelled a planned issue of 5-year Eurobonds worth $2 billion, it told the Irish Stock Exchange where the debt would have been listed. Kiev had hoped Russia would buy the bonds to help it stave off bankruptcy.
Russia’s economy minister said Moscow was still undecided on the next $2 billion installment and was awaiting clarity on the government in Ukraine.
The health ministry said 77 people had been killed since Tuesday afternoon, which meant at least 47 died in Thursday’s clashes. That was by far the worst violence since Ukraine’s independence.
On Thursday, EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels imposed targeted sanctions on Ukraine and threatened more if the authorities failed to restore calm.
In further diplomatic efforts, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel who in turn discussed Ukraine with Putin. Moscow has strongly opposed what it sees as Western interference in Moscow’s sphere of influence in Ukraine. (Additional reporting by Richard Balmforth, Alessandra Prentice, Vasily Fedosenko and Pavel Polityuk in Kiev, John Irish in Paris and Francesco Guarascio and Adrian Croft in Brussels; Writing by Paul Taylor; editing by David Stamp)
Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse 