Our Ukraine rejects offer by Yulia Timoshenko Invitation to Our Ukraine to join former Orange Coalition partner in Opposition

September 23, 2006

Ukraine needs a strong opposition if it is to hold the new Government to account.

The offer by Yulia Timoshenko for Our Ukraine to join the opposition was a good tactical move as it shows up Our Ukraine for what they are. Meanwhile Our Ukraine continues to hold out hope that it might join the governing coalition. Negotiations are proceeding as Our Ukraine’s 10 day deadline approaches.

“It is better to be a dog inside and well feed then a dog stuck out in the cold. Pavlov’s dog continues to bark at the door hoping to be let inside.”


Our Ukraine bloc has no intention to team up with Timoshenko
Source: ITAR-TASS September 22, 2006

KIEV, September 22 (Itar-Tass) — The just-created inter-factional opposition association in the Ukrainian parliament has incorporated only part of the Yulia Timoshenko faction and two Socialists.

“There is not a single deputy from the Our Ukraine faction,” a member of Our Ukraine faction, Boris Bespaly, said after Yulia Timoshenko claimed most of Our Ukraine members would side with the Opposition.

“If Our Ukraine receives any proposals on that score, we shall consider them, just as any other proposals. So far there have been no such steps by Yulia Vladimirovna, although she has systematically predicted the emergence of a powerful opposition in parliament uniting Our Ukraine and her own bloc.”

Bespaly said he has no confirmation any of Our Ukraine’s members have taken part in talks with Timoshenko.

“There is the objective reality. Everything else is either daydreaming or fantasies by Yulia Vladimirovna and her entourage,” Bespaly said.


Transdnestr separatists a cause for concern as division of language and ethnicity continue knocking at Ukraine door

September 19, 2006

In what is shaping up to be another hot spot. The residents of Moldova’s Transdnestr region Sunday votes overwhelming for succession and independence from Moldova. Whilst the World Government’s refuse to recognise the ballot the fact still remains that a large section of Moldova’s population does not wish to remain under Moldovan rule.

The President of Ukraine also has rejected the referendum as being valid.

There is no quick solution to this problem.

Ukraine also faces the potential of separatist movements building momentum if divisions are not resolved.

The election of Party of Region’s Viktor Yanakovich as Prime Minister has dampened for the time being calls for Ukraine to divide into a lose federation of autonomous republics. Crimea is already an autonomous republic and there and those that recommend the creation of additional autonomous regions.

The Hungarian community on Western Ukraine, carved off from Hungary as party of the divisions following the collapse of the Austrian-Hungarian empire after the first and second world wars, have long held the belief that they should be re-united with Hungary. They speak Hungarian and they even set their clocks to Hungarian time. Most of this regions supported Yushchenko’s election on the hope that by joining the EU they will be re-united. However during the March parliamentary elections the Hungarian did not support Our Ukraine with their vote split amongst various candidates. All who were part of the Hungarian alliance be it from different directions. Should they be allowed to form an autonomous republic and choose Hungarian as their official language?

Many of the problems related to ethnicity stem from the first and second world war. I do not claim to have the answer other then to give them more autonomy. Burying your head in the sand and hoping it will go away will not resolve this problem.

Transdnestr for independence, union with Russia – referendum

Source:RIA Novosti September 18

TIRASPOL, September 18 (RIA Novosti) – The vast majority of the population of Transdnestr, a self-proclaimed republic in Moldova, voted Sunday for independence and future accession to Russia, the central election committee said Monday.

Transdnestr held a referendum to decide whether it should continue seeking independence and union with Russia. No public disturbances were registered at the polls, a Transdnestr government official earlier said.

More than 389,000 registered voters were asked to answer two questions — whether they want the Transdnestr Region’s independence from Moldova and its subsequent union with Russia, or whether they believe the region should become part of Moldova.

The election committee said 78.6% of voters participated in the referendum. According to preliminary results, 97.1% of voters cast their ballots in favor of independence and union with Russia.

More than 130 international observers participated in monitoring the Sunday referendum in the breakaway republic. They said they did not register any procedural violations during the secret balloting.

Commenting on the preliminary results of the Transdnestr referendum, the speaker of the upper house of the Russian parliament said Monday that the population of the self-proclaimed republic voted for future union with Russia in hopes of resolving the long-running conflict with Moldova as soon as possible.

“The referendum in Transdnestr, conducted in conditions of political instability and economic blockade, became a form of expression of public will, which reflects the desire of the population to live in stability and predictability,” Sergei Mironov said.

Transdnestr, which has a predominantly Russian-speaking population, proclaimed its independence from Moldova in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Armed clashes between Moldova and Transdnestr ensued, and Russia has retained a military presence in the breakaway region ever since.


President under review Proposals to reform the office of the Ukraine’s Head of State

September 16, 2006

Office of the President under review.

Ukraine’s Communist Party propose to abolition of the post of President. Whilst the communist party, which represent less then 5% of Ukraine, proposal is unlikely to receive the necessary support and the statutory majority required to abolish the President’s position the issue surrounding the role and function of the office of president will continue to be under review.

Ukraine is now a parliamentary democracy. Government is no longer by presidential decree but the responsibility of the elected parliamentary representatives. This is a positive step in Ukraine’s democratic evolution.

Whilst supporters of the currently president would like to see the president have absolute power. I am sure supporters of the president would be the first to call for reform if someone else other then their nominee held the post of president.

Presidents come and presidents go. Constitutional reform should be based on particular outcomes. Any changes to the constitution should provide fair and democratic representation.

The first issue that must be resolve is the need to hold direct presidential elections. The cost alone, estimated to be in excess of 600 Million Dollars, of holding multiple ballots can not be justified.

Proposals worthy of further consideration include the method of selecting and appointing the person to hold the office of president. It would be perfectly acceptable for the parliament to consider and nominate the president with the requirement any nomination be supported by a statutory 2/3rds majority of the elected Parliament. This could also be balanced out by allowing the judiciary the right to also vote on any nominee of the parliament.

If the president is to continue to be appointed by direct election in a plebiscite then consideration should be given to the adoption of preferential voting and a single ballot as opposed to the current multiple two stage ballot system.

Preferential voting would produce the same result without the cost and need to hold two or more ballots. Voters would rank candidates in order of preference 1,2,3, etc. the vote would be counted according to voters allocated first preference., Should a candidate not secure an absolute majority the candidate with the least vote would be excluded and their votes redistributed according to the voters allocated preference. This process continues until one candidate obtains over 50% of votes. No need for a second ballot or the associated campaign costs.

The benefits of a preferential voting system warrant further consideration

Communists move to abolish presidency in Ukraine

RAI News 16:5315/ 09/ 2006

KIEV, September 15 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine’s Communist Party intends to propose in parliament abolishing the presidency on the grounds that it has proved ineffective, the party’s press service said Friday.

“The Communist faction will propose abolishing the post of president, which does not correspond to the nation’s centuries-long democratic traditions and has hampered state development,” leader Petro Symonenko said Friday.

Symonenko said the presidential form of government had proved to be totally ineffective and even harmful in the recent period of Ukraine’s modern history. He said a parliamentary republic was the most appropriate option for Ukraine.

“Political reform gave people’s deputies the right to form governments, define policies and control government activities with regard to popular vote results,” Symonenko said.

Communists have 21 seats in the 450-seat Supreme Rada and are part of the anti-crisis coalition formed in June, along with the Party of Regions, the largest grouping in parliament, and the Socialist Party.

They all signed the national unity pact, proposed by President Viktor Yushchenko, with Our Ukraine group, ending four months of political crisis that followed the March parliamentary elections in the country.

The pro-presidential Our Ukraine faction has been engaged in consultations with the three parties on the possibility of expanding the coalition.

But friction has persisted between the political forces as Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who is also the leader of pro-Russia Party of Regions, moved to downplay Ukraine’s plans to join NATO in Brussels earlier this week, thereby violating the national unity pact.

Western-leaning President Yushchenko has made NATO membership a priority since coming to power following a popular uprising in 2004, but he has met with strong opposition on the issue from pro-Russian political forces and the population at large.


President under review Proposals to reform the office of the Ukraine’s Head of State

September 16, 2006

Office of the President under review.

Ukraine’s Communist Party propose to abolition of the post of President. Whilst the communist party, which represent less then 5% of Ukraine, proposal is unlikely to receive the necessary support and the statutory majority required to abolish the President’s position the issue surrounding the role and function of the office of president will continue to be under review.

Ukraine is now a parliamentary democracy. Government is no longer by presidential decree but the responsibility of the elected parliamentary representatives. This is a positive step in Ukraine’s democratic evolution.

Whilst supporters of the currently president would like to see the president have absolute power. I am sure supporters of the president would be the first to call for reform if someone else other then their nominee held the post of president.

Presidents come and presidents go. Constitutional reform should be based on particular outcomes. Any changes to the constitution should provide fair and democratic representation.

The first issue that must be resolve is the need to hold direct presidential elections. The cost alone, estimated to be in excess of 600 Million Dollars, of holding multiple ballots can not be justified.

Proposals worthy of further consideration include the method of selecting and appointing the person to hold the office of president. It would be perfectly acceptable for the parliament to consider and nominate the president with the requirement any nomination be supported by a statutory 2/3rds majority of the elected Parliament. This could also be balanced out by allowing the judiciary the right to also vote on any nominee of the parliament.

If the president is to continue to be appointed by direct election in a plebiscite then consideration should be given to the adoption of preferential voting and a single ballot as opposed to the current multiple two stage ballot system.

Preferential voting would produce the same result without the cost and need to hold two or more ballots. Voters would rank candidates in order of preference 1,2,3, etc. the vote would be counted according to voters allocated first preference., Should a candidate not secure an absolute majority the candidate with the least vote would be excluded and their votes redistributed according to the voters allocated preference. This process continues until one candidate obtains over 50% of votes. No need for a second ballot or the associated campaign costs.

The benefits of a preferential voting system warrant further consideration

Communists move to abolish presidency in Ukraine

RAI News 16:5315/ 09/ 2006

KIEV, September 15 (RIA Novosti) – Ukraine’s Communist Party intends to propose in parliament abolishing the presidency on the grounds that it has proved ineffective, the party’s press service said Friday.

“The Communist faction will propose abolishing the post of president, which does not correspond to the nation’s centuries-long democratic traditions and has hampered state development,” leader Petro Symonenko said Friday.

Symonenko said the presidential form of government had proved to be totally ineffective and even harmful in the recent period of Ukraine’s modern history. He said a parliamentary republic was the most appropriate option for Ukraine.

“Political reform gave people’s deputies the right to form governments, define policies and control government activities with regard to popular vote results,” Symonenko said.

Communists have 21 seats in the 450-seat Supreme Rada and are part of the anti-crisis coalition formed in June, along with the Party of Regions, the largest grouping in parliament, and the Socialist Party.

They all signed the national unity pact, proposed by President Viktor Yushchenko, with Our Ukraine group, ending four months of political crisis that followed the March parliamentary elections in the country.

The pro-presidential Our Ukraine faction has been engaged in consultations with the three parties on the possibility of expanding the coalition.

But friction has persisted between the political forces as Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who is also the leader of pro-Russia Party of Regions, moved to downplay Ukraine’s plans to join NATO in Brussels earlier this week, thereby violating the national unity pact.

Western-leaning President Yushchenko has made NATO membership a priority since coming to power following a popular uprising in 2004, but he has met with strong opposition on the issue from pro-Russian political forces and the population at large.


Losing face Viktor Yushchenko speaks out having lost power and public support

September 16, 2006

Viktor Yushchenko, having lost public support and the parliamentary election, under pressure from his masters now finds the need to speak out and criticize the newly formed government for not agreeing his policies. (For-ua.com September 16, 2006) copy below.
In making his comments Victor Yushchenko also insisted that “the formation of a parliamentary coalition should be faster”.
Where was the Viktor Yushchenko during the negotiations for the formation of an Orange coalition. Instead of constantly travelling abroad he should have been in Ukraine providing assistance and direction to his own party and their team of negotiators.
The delays caused by Our Ukraine not supporting Yulia Tymoshenko and the Socialist Party, their persistent undermining of the formation of an “Orange” governing coalition did not go unnoticed.
Yulia Tymoshenko and Olexander Moroz both had cause to publicly call on the President as leader of Our Ukraine to bring them to the table and honour the election commitments and unity of the “Orange Revolution” pact. He failed to do so, allowing negotiations to linger on and eventually collapse.
Having gave up the opportunity to form an Orange coalition, share power and responsibility with their coalition partners, and the opportunity to hold positions of major economic portfolios and influence Our Ukraine instead continued to delay. Delaying to a point where Ukraine was facing a major political and constitutional crisis.
A point when the socialist party, an orange coalition member could no longer maintain confidence or faith in the intentions of Our Ukraine to deliver on their commitments. Time was running out and something had to break.
Our Ukraine themselves were reported in the media as also negotiating with Party of Regions, at the same time it was negotiating with Yulia Tymoshenko and the Socialists parties, about the possibility of the formation of a broader governing coalition. They were even offered the role of Prime Minister at one stage.
As it turned out the Socialists, faced with the pending crisis and in the interest of Ukraine as a whole, acted according to their conscience and agreed to form the anti-crisis coalition and appoint a working democratic parliamentary government with Party of Regions and the Communist party.
The President’s party “Our Ukraine” having failed to successfully negotiate the formation of a coalition in which they were a contributing member is now facing reality and consequences of their actions..
Ukraine’s membership of NATO has been rejected, damages to the relationship with its neighbour Russia have began to be repaired as Ukraine moves forward.
The President should look closer at home and call on his own party to hold those within responsible for the decline of his party and his personal support.
The government and Party of Regions has been given a mandate and an opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past, they have a second chance it is up to them to do what Yushchenko failed to do, to win public support, unite Ukraine and provide stable responsible government. Come 2009 (or possible earlier) the President will face the electorate and they will then decide who is best to lead the country. Yushchenko has along way to go to regain the support and public confidence that he once enjoyed.

President of Ukraine criticised the new Cabinet

In a five-hour conversation with Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, Victor Yushchenko has voiced his concern over several steps taken by the new government and said the Cabinet must observe the National Unity Pact in its work.

“I invited the prime minister to give him my first political warning about some things certain government executives do, violating the [National Unity] Pact and stabilization agreements. Our meeting resulted in a joint plan of correcting such tendencies,” he told reporters at a mass media briefing on Friday.

He is convinced the National Unity Pact “gave all the political forces keys to implement these major political, economic and humanitarian tasks.” As President of Ukraine, he will thereby spare no effort to make sure that the key principles of this document – among them the unitary form of government, language policy and Euro-Atlantic integration – are secured not only as “common political agreements reached at the phase of finding political compromises and resolving the parliamentary crisis but also used as an action plan by the new Ukrainian government.”

President Yushchenko and PM Yanukovych spoke about some dangerous social and economic tendencies, nontransparent and often inexpedient dismissals and appointments, delays in the formation of a broad parliamentary coalition, violations of the rights of the opposition and attempts to revise Ukraine’s foreign policy, the president press office informed.

“Disregarding the law, the plan to raise the minimum wage on December 1, 2006, has been put off although the country has enough resources this year. This is a dubious and unnecessary revision of budget policy,” he said, adding that VAT reimbursement and tax pressure considerably complicated the dialogue between the government and businessmen.

“The 2007 draft budget has no signs of tax reduction whatsoever,” he said, claiming such a move could have helped legalize the economy.

The President also censured the Tax Administration for being apparently unfair in VAT reimbursement and said he had authorized Prosecutor General Medvedko to study the situation within ten days and “develop a mechanism of monitoring which would make it impossible to carry out such policies in the future.”

Victor Yushchenko also insisted that the formation of a parliamentary coalition should be faster.

“The healthy part of Ukraine’s political forces must understand one thing: given the constitutional changes, which were passed hastily, political forces and government should take responsibility for many economic, humanitarian, and social issues,” he said. “I urge all those who take part in the formation of positions of this or that parliamentary faction to accelerate this process.”

The President and the premier also spoke about the inexpedience of putting pressure on deputies. Yushchenko said the revival of the practice of forcing parliamentarians to join the majority perverted the March 26 poll results.

“I would like to wish the deputies to be responsible for their voters and positions they defended during the campaign and to face all attacks bravely […],” he said. “I clearly demand that the rights of the opposition should be protected and observed so that they can control the government…”

He characterized the prime minister’s attempt to revise Ukraine’s foreign policy as unacceptable and reiterated that the country’s course to join the European Union and NATO would not change.

Victor Yushchenko also said it was vital to pass bills based on the principles of the National Unity Pact and his anti-corruption laws.

The President is soon going to convene the National Security and Defense Council to discuss all these issues.


President in denial Viktor Yushchenko rejects Prime-Minsiter’s statement that public opinon in Ukraine is opposed NATO membership

September 16, 2006

The BBC continues to display an inherent bias in its reporting on Ukraine.

Prior to the “Orange revolution I recall reports from the Kyiv office that the then Ukrainian Government were scrambling broadcast of the BBC in order to prevent access to news. What was strange about this report is that I was watching the BBC at the time of these allegations and had been watching the BBC for the preceding three days as I worked from home. I was in Ukraine at the time.

Ukraine’s President, Viktor Yushchenko, statement that Ukraine’s Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych’s belief that public opinion opposed the move was “wrong” certainly must be questioned. Public polling has shown consistently that a majority of Ukrainians do not support or are opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine’s membership of NATO featured prominently during the march 2006 election campaign with most parties and candidates opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. Even amongst supporters of Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshchenko there is strong opposition to NATO membership.

NATO membership effectively is the Presidents agenda not that of the government or the Ukrainian people.

There are calls within and without Ukraine for NATO to be reformed. The European Union should abandon NATO in favour of an independent European Security Organisation. This proposed new association would maintain alliances with other nations including the United States but would remain independent and non beholden to the United States and other countries.

Ukraine, likewise, should continue to maintain an associate relationship with NATO and only consider joining NATO if and when Ukraine joins the European Union.

Ukraine according to its constitution is an Independent Nation.



The suggestion that “Mr Yanukovych was named Prime minister in August by his Mr Yushchenko, on condition that he followed his pro-Western agenda.” is also extrordinary. Ukraine is an independent Parlaimentary Democracy, teh appointment of priminister is the detrmination of the Ukrainain Parliament and not as an agent or puppert of the President. The President’s role in approving the appointment of Parliament’s nomination is a formality only. Consitutional Game plays of this kind only serve to undermine Ukraine’s democractic development bring the Office of President into confict with the elected Parliament.



Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has criticised new Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych for suggesting Kiev was not ready to join Nato.

The president said Mr Yanukovych’s belief that public opinion opposed the move was “wrong, does not meet national interests and must be corrected”.

His prime minister called for “a pause” on Thursday after talks with top Nato and EU officials in Brussels.

Mr Yushchenko has pushed for membership of Nato following his election in 2005.

Mr Yanukovych was named PM in August by his arch-rival Mr Yushchenko, on condition that he followed his pro-Western agenda.

The move capped a dramatic comeback for Mr Yanukovych, who was ousted in Mr Yushchenko’s “Orange Revolution” in 2004.

‘Pause’

Mr Yushchenko told reporters his government had to abide by his stance of integration with Western institutions as the “foundation, the credo for foreign policy”.

The comments came a day after Mr Yanukovych said full Nato membership had only limited support among Ukrainians, on his first visit to Brussels as prime minister.

He said Kiev was taking a pause “because of the political situation in Ukraine”.

“But the time will come when a decision will be made… For the time being we are looking at enlargement of our co-operation with Nato,” he said.

Opposition to Nato membership is particularly strong in eastern and southern Ukraine – the electoral strongholds of Mr Yanukovych’s party.

Russia has also voiced strong opposition to Ukraine joining Nato.

Kiev had earlier expressed hopes of joining the world’s biggest defence alliance in 2008.

EU hopes

At the same time, Mr Yanukovych said Ukraine would continue reforms aimed at bringing the country closer to the EU.

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said the 25-member bloc had no plans to offer Kiev membership “at this moment”.

Instead, she suggested the two sides negotiate what was described as an enhanced agreement that would include a free trade pact.

Mr Yanukovych – who favours closer ties with Russia – was initially declared the victor in the 2004 presidential polls, but the result was then annulled by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the vote was fraudulent.

Mr Yushchenko was elected president in the re-run of the second round ordered by the court.

In March, Mr Yanukovych’s Party of Regions polled the most votes in parliamentary elections, but failed to secure a majority.


President in denial Viktor Yushchenko rejects Prime-Minsiter’s statement that public opinon in Ukraine is opposed NATO membership

September 16, 2006

The BBC continues to display an inherent bias in its reporting on Ukraine.

Prior to the “Orange revolution I recall reports from the Kyiv office that the then Ukrainian Government were scrambling broadcast of the BBC in order to prevent access to news. What was strange about this report is that I was watching the BBC at the time of these allegations and had been watching the BBC for the preceding three days as I worked from home. I was in Ukraine at the time.

Ukraine’s President, Viktor Yushchenko, statement that Ukraine’s Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych’s belief that public opinion opposed the move was “wrong” certainly must be questioned. Public polling has shown consistently that a majority of Ukrainians do not support or are opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine’s membership of NATO featured prominently during the march 2006 election campaign with most parties and candidates opposed to Ukraine joining NATO. Even amongst supporters of Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshchenko there is strong opposition to NATO membership.

NATO membership effectively is the Presidents agenda not that of the government or the Ukrainian people.

There are calls within and without Ukraine for NATO to be reformed. The European Union should abandon NATO in favour of an independent European Security Organisation. This proposed new association would maintain alliances with other nations including the United States but would remain independent and non beholden to the United States and other countries.

Ukraine, likewise, should continue to maintain an associate relationship with NATO and only consider joining NATO if and when Ukraine joins the European Union.

Ukraine according to its constitution is an Independent Nation.



The suggestion that “Mr Yanukovych was named Prime minister in August by his Mr Yushchenko, on condition that he followed his pro-Western agenda.” is also extrordinary. Ukraine is an independent Parlaimentary Democracy, teh appointment of priminister is the detrmination of the Ukrainain Parliament and not as an agent or puppert of the President. The President’s role in approving the appointment of Parliament’s nomination is a formality only. Consitutional Game plays of this kind only serve to undermine Ukraine’s democractic development bring the Office of President into confict with the elected Parliament.



Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has criticised new Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych for suggesting Kiev was not ready to join Nato.

The president said Mr Yanukovych’s belief that public opinion opposed the move was “wrong, does not meet national interests and must be corrected”.

His prime minister called for “a pause” on Thursday after talks with top Nato and EU officials in Brussels.

Mr Yushchenko has pushed for membership of Nato following his election in 2005.

Mr Yanukovych was named PM in August by his arch-rival Mr Yushchenko, on condition that he followed his pro-Western agenda.

The move capped a dramatic comeback for Mr Yanukovych, who was ousted in Mr Yushchenko’s “Orange Revolution” in 2004.

‘Pause’

Mr Yushchenko told reporters his government had to abide by his stance of integration with Western institutions as the “foundation, the credo for foreign policy”.

The comments came a day after Mr Yanukovych said full Nato membership had only limited support among Ukrainians, on his first visit to Brussels as prime minister.

He said Kiev was taking a pause “because of the political situation in Ukraine”.

“But the time will come when a decision will be made… For the time being we are looking at enlargement of our co-operation with Nato,” he said.

Opposition to Nato membership is particularly strong in eastern and southern Ukraine – the electoral strongholds of Mr Yanukovych’s party.

Russia has also voiced strong opposition to Ukraine joining Nato.

Kiev had earlier expressed hopes of joining the world’s biggest defence alliance in 2008.

EU hopes

At the same time, Mr Yanukovych said Ukraine would continue reforms aimed at bringing the country closer to the EU.

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said the 25-member bloc had no plans to offer Kiev membership “at this moment”.

Instead, she suggested the two sides negotiate what was described as an enhanced agreement that would include a free trade pact.

Mr Yanukovych – who favours closer ties with Russia – was initially declared the victor in the 2004 presidential polls, but the result was then annulled by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the vote was fraudulent.

Mr Yushchenko was elected president in the re-run of the second round ordered by the court.

In March, Mr Yanukovych’s Party of Regions polled the most votes in parliamentary elections, but failed to secure a majority.