Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Steven Woehrel
Specialist in European Affairs
January 31, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33460
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Summary
Since Viktor Yanukovych defeated Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko to win Ukraine’s
presidency in 2010, many observers have expressed concern about Ukraine’s democratic
development, including the government’s use of the courts to neutralize opposition leaders,
including Tymoshenko, who was sentenced to a seven-year prison term in 2011. International
observers criticized Ukraine’s October 2012 parliamentary elections as falling short of
international standards.
The global economic crisis hit Ukraine hard. Ukraine’s real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell
by an estimated 15% in 2009. The economy began to recover in 2010, and GDP increased by
4.7% in 2011. However, living standards for many Ukrainians remain low, leading to a rapid drop
in Yanukovych’s popularity when compared to the period soon after his inauguration. Slow
growth in Western Europe resulted in slower growth in 2012 for Ukraine as well.
President Yanukovych has pursued closer ties with Russia, especially in the economic sphere. A
major focus of his policy has been to seek reduced prices for natural gas supplies from Moscow,
or failing that, to diversify Ukraine’s sources of supply. Ukraine has so far fended off Russian
pressure to sell it control of its gas pipeline system and join Russia-led political and economic
integration structures.
Yanukovych has said that EU integration is a key priority for Ukraine, but EU criticism of what it
views as the politically motivated conviction and imprisonment of Tymoshenko and others has
delayed the signature of a long-awaited association agreement with the EU, which includes a free
trade agreement. Yanukovych has made clear that his country is not seeking NATO membership,
but will continue cooperation with NATO, including the holding of joint military exercises.
The Obama Administration has worked to “reset” relations with Russia, but has warned that it
will not accept any country’s assertion of a sphere of influence, a reminder of U.S. support for
Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Administration has focused on helping Ukraine rid itself of its
supplies of highly enriched uranium, assisting Ukraine with the clean-up of the Chernobyl nuclear
site, and diversifying Ukraine’s sources of energy, including advice on developing Ukraine’s
shale gas reserves. Administration officials have expressed serious concerns about regression in
Ukraine’s democratic development since Yanukovych took power, including in such areas as
media freedoms and selective prosecution of the government’s political opponents.
Legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress and 113th Congress calling for Tymoshenko and
other victims of politically motivated prosecutions to be released from prison. One of them, a
modified version of S.Res. 466, was passed by the Senate on September 21, 2012. Among other
provisions, it called for sanctions against Ukrainian leaders responsible for selective prosecutions.
Congressional Research Service
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Political Situation ............................................................................................................... 3
Current Economic Situation............................................................................................................. 5
Ukraine’s Foreign Policy ................................................................................................................. 6
NATO ........................................................................................................................................ 6
European Union ......................................................................................................................... 7
Russia ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Energy Issues ....................................................................................................................... 8
U.S. Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Response .......................................................................................................... 11
U.S. Aid to Ukraine ........................................................................................................... 11
Other Legislation ............................................................................................................... 12
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13
Congressional Research Service
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Background
Ukraine, comparable in size and population to France, is a large, important, European state. The
fact that it occupies the sensitive position between Russia and NATO member states Poland,
Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania adds to its geostrategic significance. Many Russian politicians,
as well as ordinary citizens, have never been fully reconciled to Ukraine’s independence from the
Soviet Union in 1991, and feel that the country belongs in Russia’s political and economic orbit.
The U.S. and European view (particularly in Central and Eastern Europe) is that a strong,
independent Ukraine is an important part of building a Europe whole, free, and at peace.
From the mid-1990s until 2004, Ukraine’s political scene was dominated by President Leonid
Kuchma and the oligarchic “clans” (groups of powerful politicians and businessmen, mainly
based in eastern and southern Ukraine) that supported him. Kuchma was elected president in
1994, and re-elected in 1999. He could not run for a third term under the Ukrainian constitution.
His rule was characterized by fitful economic reform (albeit with solid economic growth in later
years), widespread corruption, and a deteriorating human rights record.
Ukraine’s 2004 presidential elections were marred by electoral fraud, which triggered massive
street protests. The oligarchs chose Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych as their candidate to
succeed Kuchma as president. The chief opposition candidate, former Prime Minister Viktor
Yushchenko, was a pro-reform, pro-Western figure. After the November 21 runoff vote, Ukraine’s
Central Election Commission proclaimed Yanukovych the winner. Yushchenko’s supporters
charged that massive fraud had been committed. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians took to the
streets, in what came to be known as the “Orange Revolution,” after Yushchenko’s chosen
campaign color. They blockaded government offices in Kyiv and appealed to the Ukrainian
Supreme Court to invalidate the vote. The court did so and set a repeat runoff vote. Yushchenko
won the December 26 re-vote, with 51.99% of the vote to Yanukovych’s 44.19%.
The “Orange Revolution” sparked a good deal of interest in Congress and elsewhere. Some hoped
that Ukraine could finally embark on a path of comprehensive reforms and Euro-Atlantic
integration after years of half-measures and false starts. However, subsequent events led to
disillusionment among Orange Revolution supporters, both in Ukraine and abroad. President
Yushchenko soon fell into squabbling with Yuliya Tymoshenko, his main backer during the
Orange Revolution and his first prime minister, over policy and over mutual allegations of
corruption, slowing progress on reforms.
In 2006, Yushchenko reluctantly reappointed his 2004 presidential election opponent Viktor
Yanukovych as prime minister, after Yanukovych’s Party of Regions won the most seats in
parliamentary elections that year. Political conflict between Yushchenko and Yanukovych soon
ensued, leading to early parliamentary elections in September 2007. The Party of Regions
remained the largest party in the new legislature, but the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc and
Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine-People’s Defense group won enough seats to form a new government.
After lengthy negotiations, President Yushchenko nominated Tymoshenko as his candidate for
prime minister. The parliament approved Tymoshenko as prime minister with 226 votes, the
barest of majorities in the 450-seat assembly.
Over the next two years, Ukraine’s government again lurched from one political crisis to another.
Perhaps the key problem was the familiar one of tensions between Tymoshenko and President
Yushchenko. In addition to policy differences and intense personal enmity and distrust between
Congressional Research Service
1
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
the two leaders, the conflict was also due to jockeying for power in advance of upcoming
presidential elections, in which both were to be candidates. As Ukrainian leaders engaged in this
three-sided political battle, an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians grew disgusted with the
Ukrainian political class, according to opinion polls. Observers say that this is in part due to the
fact that Ukrainian leaders continued to squabble despite the global economic crisis, which
inflicted severe blows on Ukraine's economy.
Ukraine held presidential elections on January 17, 2010. As expected, Viktor Yanukovych came
in first, winning 35.32% of the vote. Yuliya Tymoshenko, doing somewhat better than some pre-
election polls indicated, won 25.05%. Serhei Tihipko, a former prime minister whose support was
strongest in pro-Russian eastern Ukraine, won 13.05%. Former parliament speaker Arseniy
Yatsenyuk won 6.96%. Incumbent President Yushchenko did very poorly, winning a mere 5.45%.
Other candidates split the rest of the vote. The results set up a second round runoff vote between
Yanukovych and Tymoshenko on February 7. Yanukovych won 48.98% of the vote, beating
Tymoshenko, who won 45.47%. The results showed a sharp regional split, with Yanukovych
winning in Russian-speaking eastern and southern Ukraine, while Tymoshenko prevailed in
central and western Ukraine, where Ukrainian nationalism is stronger. However, Yanukovych’s
overwhelming margins in the east (particularly in his home base, the Donetsk and Luhansk
regions) more than offset Tymoshenko’s modest victories in some western areas.
International monitors praised the conduct of the election. Joao Soares of Portugal, head of the
observer team from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said the February 7
vote was an “impressive display of democratic elections.” In a possible hint to Tymoshenko, he
added that it was “now time for the country’s political leaders to listen to the people’s verdict and
make sure that the transition of power is peaceful and constructive.”1 Exit polls by independent
groups did not show a significant departure from the announced results. Tymoshenko charged that
Yanukovych’s supporters had engaged in massive fraud, but that she would not call her supporters
out into the streets to challenge the result. Analysts suggested that this was because a disillusioned
public would not turn out for mass demonstrations as they had in 2004.
On March 11, 2010, the Ukrainian parliament approved Yanukovych’s choice for the post of
prime minister, Mykola Azarov. Azarov has been a loyal associate of Yanukovych for many years.
He served as first deputy prime minister and finance minister during Yanukovych’s two terms as
prime minister. The government was supported by the Party of Regions, the Communist Party,
and the centrist and opportunistic Lytvyn Bloc. However, in order to secure a majority, additional
support from deputies of the former ruling coalition was required. As has happened after previous
presidential elections, the new leader was able to gain that support. Opposition leaders charged
that those who switched did so because they were bribed or threatened with government
retaliation against their businesses if they did not comply. The opposition also said that the
defections from a party faction were unconstitutional. However, the Ukrainian Constitutional
Court later ruled that the method of the government’s formation was legal. President
Yanukovych’s formal powers were further boosted in October 2010, when the Constitutional
Court invalidated constitutional amendments adopted during the Orange Revolution that had
ceded some of the president’s power over the government to the parliament.
1 The reports of the International Election Observation Mission can be found at http://www.osce.org/odihr/.
Congressional Research Service
2
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Key Parties in Ukraine’s Parliament
Current Political
Party of Regions: The main party of the ruling regime
and by far the largest faction in the Ukrainian parliament.
Situation
It draws its support from eastern Ukraine, where
suspicion of Ukrainian nationalism is high and support for
close ties with Russia is strong. It defends the economic
President Yanukovych and his supporters have
interests of powerful oligarchic business groups.
portrayed themselves as a team of
Fatherland: The largest opposition party, founded by
professionals engaged in the practical work of
imprisoned opposition leader Yuliya Tymoshenko. In
governing, as opposed to the unproductive
order to boost the opposition’s chances, Fatherland’s
squabbling of the Yushchenko period. The
party list for the parliamentary election included figures
opposition charges that the government has
from other opposition groups, such as former parliament
speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk. This united opposition slate
not achieved significant results while in office,
ran on a populist, anti-corruption platform. It drew its
except for engaging in massive corruption and
support from western and central Ukraine, where
favoring the business interests of its oligarchic
Ukrainian nationalism is strongest.
backers. They have noted that the Yanukovych
Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform
family is rapidly acquiring assets, forming an
(UDAR): Founded by heavyweight boxing champion
oligarchic group of its own. After a brief
Vitali Klitchko (the acronym “UDAR” means “punch” in
“honeymoon” period after the presidential
Ukrainian), UDAR relies chiefly on the personal
popularity of Klitchko. Its platform, while expressing
election, the Yanukovych administration
opposition to regime corruption, was criticized for
dropped sharply in public opinion polls (as its
lacking in specifics. Its party list was heterogeneous,
predecessors did).
including former supporters of Yushchenko and
Tymoshenko, as well as opportunistic figures who have
Ukraine’s government has been strongly
switched sides in the past when it suited their personal
interests.
criticized over its human rights record in many
areas, including media freedoms. However,
Freedom: A party espousing extreme Ukrainian
U.S. and EU officials have expressed perhaps
nationalism and economic populism, Freedom received
most of its votes from western Ukraine, where it made a
the strongest concern over the government’s
surprisingly strong showing. Some observers have
targeting of opposition leaders for selective
attributed its success to disillusionment with the
prosecution. In the most prominent case, in
Fatherland and other opposition groups rather than a
October 2011 Tymoshenko was convicted of
surge in support for Ukrainian nationalism.
abuse of power arising out of her role in
Communist Party: The Communist Party has been
signing a natural gas supply agreement with
overtaken by the Party of Regions in its eastern Ukraine
Russia and sentenced to seven years in prison.
strongholds and has a largely elderly electorate. It
Due to serious back pain she was suffering,
opposes market economics and favors strong ties to
Russia. In the 2012 election, the Communists attracted
Tymoshenko was transferred first to a prison
significant support from voters in eastern Ukraine who
hospital, and then, after she complained of
are disenchanted with the Party of Regions.
mistreatment and inadequate care, to another
hospital outside the prison. However, far from responding to U.S. and EU pressure on the case, in
January 2013, Ukrainian prosecutors charged Tymoshenko with the murder of a member of the
Ukrainian parliament in 1996 and embezzlement, fraud, and tax evasion while she headed an
energy company in the 1990s.
In another apparent case of selective prosecution, in February 2012 former Interior Minister Yuri
Lutsenko was convicted on charges of abuse of office, fraud, and embezzlement, and sentenced to
four years in prison. In all, U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE Ian Kelly said after Lutsenko’s
conviction, 13 former senior officials from the Tymoshenko-led government, including 4 cabinet
ministers, 5 deputy ministers, 2 agency heads, 1 governor, and the head of the state gas monopoly,
had been charged with alleged crimes arising from their time in office. Given this record, the
United States and the European Union were concerned about whether October 2012
Congressional Research Service
3
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
parliamentary elections would meet international standards. In August 2012, the Ukrainian
Central Election Commission struck Tymoshenko and Lutsenko from the united opposition’s
party list, due to their criminal convictions.
As expected, the results were a victory for President Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. According
to Ukraine’s electoral law, half of the seats in the 450-seat parliament are determined by
proportional representation by a country-wide party list, with a minimum of 5% of the vote
needed to receive seats. The other half is decided by races in individual districts. According to
Ukraine’s Central Election Commission, the Party of Regions won 30% of the vote for the party
list seats. The Fatherland party, which was founded by the jailed Tymoshenko, won 25.5%. The
Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR), a new political force led by heavyweight
boxing champion Vitali Klitchko, won just under 14%. The Communist Party of Ukraine won
13.2%, while the extreme Ukrainian nationalist party Freedom won 10.4%. The Party of Regions
made up for its relatively modest showing in the party list vote by taking the lion’s share of seats
in individual districts.
International observers were critical of the conduct of the elections. A preliminary statement by
an election observation team from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly, and the European Parliament said the election was characterized by “the lack of a level
playing field, caused primarily by the abuse of administrative resources, lack of transparency of
campaign and party financing, and lack of balanced media coverage.” The statement said the
election campaign “constituted a step backwards compared with recent national elections.” The
observers assessed the voting on election day and the initial counting of ballots “mostly
positively.” However, the report added that tabulation of vote totals was assessed negatively due
to a lack of transparency.
Opposition leaders denounced the election as fraudulent. Tymoshenko called them the most
corrupt in Ukraine’s history. However, the results of the proportional vote appeared to be roughly
in line with a parallel vote count conducted by OPORA, an independent Ukrainian election
monitoring NGO. On the other hand, OPORA, other NGOs, and opposition candidates noted
serious problems with the vote count in some individual districts.
In December 2012, the Party of Regions was able to form a parliamentary faction of 208
members. While short of the 226 needed for a majority, the Party of Regions is expected to have a
working majority with the support of the Communist Party (32 members) or among independent
deputies (27 members), or both. However, that majority will likely be less predictable than in the
past, as in Ukrainian politics some members elected in individual districts may change position
with shifts in the political winds, particularly in the run-up to the next presidential election in
2015. The opposition is represented by “Fatherland” (99 seats), UDAR (42 seats), and “Freedom”
(24 seats).
The new government formed after the election was similar to its predecessor, with Prime Minister
Azarov remaining at his post. However, some Ukrainian commentators noted that several new
figures in the government lack a high political profile, but form part of the personal entourage of
the President and his son, Oleksandr (colloquially known as “the Family.”) These analysts claim
that these moves mark the “Family’s” further consolidation of political power, which will in turn
assist the group’s ongoing efforts to grab more of Ukraine’s economic assets.
Congressional Research Service
4
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Current Economic Situation
Until the global economic crisis, Ukraine experienced substantial economic growth, with GDP
increasing by an average of 7.5% between 2000 and 2007. The growth was fueled mainly by
consumption, including an import boom fed by heavy domestic and foreign borrowing. This was
reflected in a widening trade deficit and current account deficit. Ukraine’s growth was also due to
strong demand for products of the country’s large steel and chemicals industries. Despite this
growth, Ukraine remains much poorer than other European countries. In 2011, its GDP per capita
in purchasing power parity terms was only 21% of that of the EU and only 43% of Russia’s. In
2010 its foreign direct investment (FDI) per capita was $979, less than half of that in Russia and
about a quarter of Poland’s FDI per capita. Foreign companies often cite such issues as rampant
corruption and serious shortcomings in the rule of law (including a weak judiciary) as key
stumbling blocks to foreign investment.
Due to the unsustainable basis of its growth and the lack of confidence caused by its squabbling
political leadership, Ukraine was hit very hard by the global economic crisis. Ukraine’s real Gross
Domestic Product fell by 15.1% in 2009. The economy soon rebounded, however. Real GDP rose
by 4.2% in 2010, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, and by 5.2% in 2011, but slowed
to an estimated 0.6% in 2012, due to a downturn in Europe.
Ukraine’s currency, the hryvnya, was also hit hard by the crisis, dropping from just over 5 to the
US dollar at the end of 2007 to just over 8 hryvnya to the dollar in late 2012. This development
was devastating for many Ukrainians, as many deposits and loans were denominated in foreign
currencies before the financial crisis. Nevertheless, in November 2012 IMF experts estimated that
the hryvnya is still overvalued by more than 10%. Some analysts believe the efforts of the
Ukrainian central bank to defend the current exchange rate are harming economic growth. The
overvalued currency and a drop in demand for Ukraine’s exports (especially steel) have been
reflected in a current account deficit of a whopping 9% of GDP in 2012.
There have been serious concerns about the transparency of the privatization process under the
Yanukovych administration. Foreign investors in the agriculture sector expressed anger at
Ukraine’s limitation of grain export licenses, which were granted preferentially to companies with
close ties to government officials. Observers believe that the natural gas sector privatization has
led to control of regional gas supply infrastructure by powerful oligarchs.
In July 2010, the International Monetary Fund approved a $15.15 billion standby loan for Ukraine
to support its reform efforts. Two tranches of the loan were disbursed, but the IMF declined to
release additional ones, due to Ukraine’s refusal to increase energy prices for domestic
consumers, which would be highly unpopular in Ukraine. Ukraine received loans from Russia
and China to try to make up for the suspension of the IMF loan. Ukraine also raised large
additional loans on the Eurobond market.2 After the October 2012 parliamentary elections were
over, Ukraine renewed its efforts to seek a new IMF loan. The IMF is likely to renew demands for
budget cuts, an increase in domestic energy prices, and a partial devaluation of the hryvnya.
Ukraine may have to meet the IMF demands this time, as it is squeezed by a large debt repayment
schedule for 2013 and Russia’s continuing refusal to cut Ukraine’s natural gas import bill.
2 Economist Intelligence Unit Country Report: Ukraine, January 2013.
Congressional Research Service
5
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Ukraine’s Foreign Policy
Since achieving independence in 1991, conflict between Ukraine’s political forces has led its
foreign policy to appear incoherent, as the contending forces pulled it in pro-Western or pro-
Russia directions or simply neglected foreign policy as less important than domestic political
combat and the division of the spoils of victory. Ukrainian leaders gave lip service to joining
NATO and the European Union, but did little to meet the standards set by these organizations.
Ukrainian leaders also promised closer ties with Russia in exchange for Russian energy at
subsidized prices, but balked at implementing agreements with Russia that would seriously
compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty, such as ceding control over Ukraine’s energy infrastructure to
Moscow.
President Yushchenko tried to break with this pattern, and accelerate Ukraine’s integration into
the global economy and Euro-Atlantic institutions, with limited success. President Yanukovych’s
foreign policy appears to resemble a return to that of the pre-Yushchenko period, but with a
somewhat stronger tilt toward Russia. For example, Yanukovych has broken with previous
Ukrainian presidents by clearly rejecting NATO membership for Ukraine. He continues to
express support for EU integration for Ukraine, but the genuineness of his commitment to the
reforms needed to reach this goal is open to question. He has improved ties with Russia, but has
so far tactfully evaded Russia’s most ambitious demands for economic and military integration.
NATO
NATO declined to offer Ukraine a Membership Action Plan (MAP), a key steppingstone to
eventual NATO membership, at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, despite strong
support from the United States and almost all Central European NATO members. Germany and
France played the leading role in blocking the effort, likely fearing a sharp deterioration in ties
with Moscow. Nevertheless, the summit communiqué contained an unqualified statement that
Ukraine (and Georgia) “will become members of NATO,” without specifying when that might
happen. In what appeared to be an attempt to skirt the sensitive membership candidacy issue, in
December 2008 NATO foreign ministers agreed to work with Ukraine on “annual national
programs” within the framework of the existing NATO-Ukraine Commission, which assists
Ukraine’s defense reform efforts.
In 2010, President Yanukovych dropped the MAP aspirations of his predecessor, a move that
pleased Russia. He said that Ukraine would continue cooperating with NATO, but without
seeking membership in the alliance. NATO officers provide advice on defense reform within
Ukraine’s defense ministry. Ukraine has continued to participate in joint exercises with the United
States and other NATO countries. Russia has been irked by continuing political consultations
between NATO and Ukraine, including on issues affecting Russia, such as the Black Sea Fleet.
Ukraine has not contributed substantial numbers of troops to Afghanistan, at least in part due to
bad public memories of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. According to the
website of the NATO-led ISAF peacekeeping force, Ukraine had 24 soldiers in Afghanistan in
January 2013. As of November 2012, Ukraine deployed 136 troops to KFOR, the NATO-led
peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Ukraine plans to contribute a frigate to NATO-led anti-piracy
operations off Somalia.
Congressional Research Service
6
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
European Union
Ukraine seeks eventual EU membership. However, most EU countries have opposed to raising
the issue of Ukraine’s possible membership, perhaps because of the huge burden a large, poor
country like Ukraine could place on already-strained EU coffers. Ukraine currently has a
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with the EU, as well as a Ukraine-EU Action Plan
within the context of the EU’s European Neighborhood policy. The agreements are aimed at
providing aid and advice to assist Ukraine’s political and economic transition and to promote
closer ties with the EU. In 2009, the EU launched the Eastern Partnership program, a regional
approach to cooperation that also includes Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.
The EU budgeted €470 million ($682 million) in aid for reforms in Ukraine for 2011-2013.3 The
assistance covers such areas as energy cooperation, strengthening border controls, bolstering the
judiciary and the rule of law, and addressing environmental concerns. Funding for 2014- 2020 has
yet to be determined, but, given the EU’s financial difficulties, it may be reduced somewhat.
The EU and Ukraine have initialed an Association Agreement. The agreement, which does not
contain a perspective of future membership, includes a free trade accord and will allow for deeper
cooperation between the EU and Ukraine in a wide variety of fields. However, EU officials have
postponed the signing of the agreement due to the Ukrainian leadership’s failure to show
sufficient commitment to European values in democracy and rule of law.
In December 2012, the EU Council (the EU’s main policymaking body) noted “shortcomings” in
the October 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election, saying it “marked a deterioration” when
compared to previous elections. The Council also called on Ukraine to “address the cases of
politically motivated convictions” of opposition leaders “without delay,” and to carry out judicial
and constitutional reforms. The Council said the EU would sign the Association Agreement only
after Ukraine makes “tangible progress” toward meeting these conditions, which it suggested
could happen as early as the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November 2013.
Some observers believe the biggest sticking point in the conditions above is the possible
implication that the agreement will not be signed as long as Tymoshenko remains in prison. Some
analysts say the Ukrainian authorities appear to fear Tymoshenko as their most formidable
opponent in the 2015 presidential elections and may be willing to pay any foreign policy price to
keep her in prison.
Some central European countries such as Lithuania and Poland are reportedly arguing for signing
the accord anyway, saying that isolating Ukraine could make the situation there worse and drive
the country into deeper dependence on Russia. These countries may also be partly motivated by
their economic links with Ukraine. On the other hand, some western European countries within
the EU are more reportedly more skeptical about signing the agreement, given the deteriorating
human rights situation in Ukraine.
3 “See March 2011 EU press release at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/250&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLan
guage=en.
Congressional Research Service
7
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Russia
Ukraine’s closest, yet most difficult and complex, relationship is with Russia. Ethnic Russians
make up 17.3% of Ukraine’s population, according to the 2001 Ukrainian census. They are
concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the country. They form a majority in the Crimea
(a peninsula in the Black Sea in southern Ukraine), where they make up 58.3% of the population.
In the Crimean city of Sevastopol, the home base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, 71.6% of the
population is Russian. In addition, ethnic Ukrainians in the east and south also tend to be Russian-
speaking, are suspicious of Ukrainian nationalism, and support close ties with Russia. Russian
officials have often tried to play on these ethnic and regional ties, not always successfully.
President Putin strongly backed Yanukovych’s fraudulent “victory” during the 2004 presidential
election campaign and reacted angrily to the success of the Orange Revolution. Russian observers
with close ties to the Kremlin charged that the Orange Revolution was in fact a plot engineered
by the United States and other Western countries. Relations during the Yushchenko presidency
were rocky. Russia was irked by Yushchenko’s efforts to support greater democratization in the
region; impose tighter border controls on Transnistria, a pro-Moscow, separatist enclave within
neighboring Moldova; and forge closer links with Georgia.
One of President Yanukovych’s top foreign policy priorities has been to improve relations with
Russia. In April 2010, Russia and Ukraine agreed to extend the stay of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet in Crimea until 2042, from the original withdrawal date of 2017. In exchange, Russia agreed
to provide Ukraine with discounted prices for natural gas supplies for 10 years, a benefit that the
two sides estimated as worth $40 billion. Russian companies, with Russian government support,
have also stepped up efforts to buy key industrial assets in Ukraine since Yanukovych has come
to power. While they have achieved some successes, they have also faced opposition from
Ukrainian oligarchs who desire to maintain control of major companies.
However, some of Russia’s boldest proposals for improving ties with Ukraine appear to have
gone further than Kyiv can support. Yanukovych continues to stress Ukraine’s neutral, “non-bloc”
status. He has said Ukraine will not join Moscow’s counterpart to NATO, the Collective Security
Treaty Organization. Russia is pressing Ukraine to join its Customs Union with Belarus and
Kazakhstan. Ukraine has rejected these overtures, saying the customs union is not compatible
with the agreements Ukraine signed with other countries before it joined the World Trade
Organization. The EU has also warned that it would not be compatible with the EU-Ukraine free
trade agreement that is part of the Association Agreement. In September 2012, Ukraine joined a
Russian-led Commonwealth of Independent States free trade area.
Energy Issues
The most severe crises in Russian-Ukrainian relations have occurred over energy. Ukraine is
heavily dependent on Russia for its energy supplies. In the past, about 80% of its oil and natural
gas consumption have come from Russia. However, Ukraine’s vulnerability to Russian pressure
has been mitigated by the fact that the main oil and natural gas pipelines to Central and Western
Europe transit its territory. Well over two-thirds of Russia’s gas exports have passed through
Ukraine in recent years. Ukraine rivals Germany as Gazprom’s largest gas consumer. Until the
Yushchenko presidency, Russian firms supplied energy to Ukraine at prices far below market
rates. Energy sales have been conducted by non-transparent intermediary companies, offering the
elites of both countries opportunities to profit. Russia’s efforts to increase gas prices for Ukraine
to market levels provoked a crisis in 2006 that resulted in cutoff of Russian gas to Western
Congressional Research Service
8
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
Europe for several days in January 2006. A second gas crisis occurred in January 2009, resulting
in a gas cutoff of nearly three weeks.
Russia has sought control of Ukraine’s natural gas pipelines and storage facilities. Its efforts have
been unsuccessful so far, due to Kyiv’s refusal to cede control of one of its key economic assets.
This fact, as well as the 2006 and 2009 gas cutoffs, has led Russia and some European countries
to plan and build pipelines that would bypass Ukraine. Gazprom is developing gas pipelines
under the Baltic Sea (called Nord Stream) and through the Balkans (called South Stream) to
Western Europe. Nord Stream made its first deliveries of gas in 2011. South Stream has started
construction, with first deliveries projected for 2015. Gazprom is also planning to increase
supplies to Western Europe through the Belarusian pipeline system, over which it gained full
control in 2011. Ukraine’s reduced share of gas transport to Europe could give Russia more
leverage to demand that Ukraine sell it control of its gas pipeline system at a lower price that it
otherwise could. Russia could also feel it would have a freer hand to put greater pressure on
Ukraine on other issues, including political ones. Key Western European countries could feel they
have less of a stake in Ukraine’s future, if they, like Russia, were no longer dependent on
Ukrainian gas transport infrastructure.
Yanukovych, who is supported by oligarchs who control gas imports and own energy-hungry
steel and chemicals industries, has stressed the need to secure lower natural gas prices from
Russia. He has sharply criticized the gas agreement between Russia and Ukraine signed by
Tymoshenko in 2009, saying that the gas was far too expensive for Ukraine. The April 2010
Black Sea Fleet agreement was one step Yanukovych has taken to try to secure cheaper gas
supplies. However, the impact of the deal on gas prices has been less than anticipated, as oil
prices (on which Ukraine’s gas price is calculated) soared due to unrest in the Middle East.
Russia continues to pressure Ukraine to make further concessions if it wants further gas price
cuts. Russian banks have provided loans to Ukraine to pay for gas at current prices, perhaps
providing Russia with additional leverage with Kyiv. Moscow has tried to persuade Ukraine to
join a customs union with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan by offering it cheaper gas if it does so,
so far without success. Russia has also advocated the merger of Gazprom with Ukraine’s state-
controlled gas firm Naftohaz, which would amount to a Russian takeover of the Ukrainian
company, due to the former’s much larger size. Yanukovych rejected this project, but has offered
Russia part-ownership of Ukraine’s gas pipeline system in exchange for guaranteed gas volumes
for Ukrainian gas pipelines and access to Russian gas and oil deposits. According to this plan, EU
companies would also participate in a new company that would control the gas transit system.
Given Russia’s unwillingness to renegotiate the terms of the current gas supply agreement,
Ukraine has sharply reduced its import of gas from Russia. Under the terms of Ukraine’s “take-
or-pay” contract with Gazprom, Ukraine is obliged to pay for all of the contracted gas, whether it
takes it or not. In January 2013, Gazprom presented a bill to Ukraine for $7 billion for the gas that
it didn’t take in 2012. Ukraine has refused to pay. Some analysts claim there is a chance Russia
could cut off gas supplies to Ukraine yet again, which would spark the third gas crisis in 7 years.
For its part, Ukraine has intensified efforts to find alternative sources of supply of energy,
including greater use of coal, boosting domestic gas production, reversing the flow of some gas
pipelines to receive gas from western Europe, and securing supplies of liquefied natural gas from
other countries. In January 2013, Ukraine signed a production sharing agreement with Shell to
extract shale gas in Ukraine.
Congressional Research Service
9
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
U.S. Policy
In a call to Viktor Yanukovych in February 2010, to congratulate him on his victory in the
Ukrainian presidential election, President Obama touched on the main themes of U.S. policy
toward Ukraine. He noted the “strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine is
based on shared interests and values. These include expanding democracy and prosperity,
protecting security and territorial integrity, strengthening the rule of law, promoting non-
proliferation, and supporting reform in Ukraine’s economic and energy sectors.”4
Yanukovych’s rejection of NATO membership and his move toward closer ties with Russia (as
shown, for example, in the 2010 agreement to extend the stay of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in
Crimea) did not provoke public criticism from the Obama Administration. The Administration
has instead focused on improving cooperation in such fields as nuclear non-proliferation and
energy. However, U.S. officials have expressed increasing concern about backsliding in Ukraine’s
democratic development.
After a meeting on the eve of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010,
President Obama and President Yanukovych agreed that Ukraine would rid itself of the entire
stock of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from its soil by the time of the next Nuclear Security
Summit in March 2012. The United States agreed to help Ukraine to develop its nuclear research
capabilities and diversify its sources of fuel supply for its nuclear reactors. The United States also
pledged to continue to cooperate with Ukraine on nuclear safety issues, including the cleanup of
the Chernobyl nuclear reactor site. In total, the United States contributed almost $240 million to
Chernobyl cleanup efforts. At an international pledging conference for Chernobyl in April 2011,
the United States pledged another $123 million.5
The two countries are cooperating on energy issues as well. U.S. officials have repeatedly
stressed that Ukraine’s security depends on diversifying its energy supplies and increasing energy
efficiency. Yanukovych has placed more emphasis recently on “energy independence” for
Ukraine after repeatedly failing to secure a natural gas price break from Russia. In February 2011,
the United States and Ukraine signed a memorandum of understanding on a U.S. Geological
Survey effort to help Ukraine explore and develop its reserves of unconventional natural gas.
Other U.S. aid programs are aimed at helping Ukraine improve its energy efficiency. In August
2012, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency agreed to fund a feasibility study on restarting
production at long-idled, low-yield hydrocarbon deposits in Ukraine. Chevron hopes to sign a
production sharing deal on developing unconventional gas reserves in Ukraine, but has so far
been stymied by objections from local officials in western Ukraine, who have voiced
environmental concerns.
In October 2011, the White House press secretary issued a statement saying the United States was
“deeply disappointed” with Tymoshenko’s conviction and sentencing in a “politically motivated
prosecution.” The statement said that the trial and other incidents raised “serious concerns” about
the government’s commitment to democracy and the rule of law. The statement called on Ukraine
4 Press release from the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/readout-presidents-call-
with-president-elect-yanukovych-ukraine.
5 U.S. Participation in the Kyiv Summit and the Chornobyl Pledging Conference: Fact Sheet, April 19, 2011, from the
State Department website at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/04/161228.htm.
Congressional Research Service
10
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
to release Tymoshenko and other opposition figures so that they can take part in the October 2012
parliamentary election. In a brief meeting with President Yanukovych at the March 2012 Nuclear
Security Summit, President Obama praised Ukraine for removing all of the highly enriched
uranium from its territory. President Obama stressed that Ukraine should hold free, fair, and
transparent parliamentary elections in October, and expressed concerns about selective
prosecutions of the political opposition.
After the October 2012 parliamentary election, the State Department issued a statement saying
that the Ukrainian election was a “step backward” from the progress made during previous
elections. The statement noted the concerns of the international observers about “the use of
government resources to favor ruling party candidates, interference with media access, and
harassment of opposition candidates.” It said the United States was “troubled by allegations of
fraud and falsification in the voting process and tabulation, by the disparity between preliminary
results from the Central Election Commission and parallel vote tabulations, and by the Central
Election Commission’s decision not to release precinct results.”
In November 2012, Vice President Biden called President Yanukovych, thanking him for his
message congratulating President Obama on his re-election. Biden “voiced concerns” over
Ukraine’s parliamentary elections. He asked Yanukovych to “ensure the process is completed in a
fair and transparent manner. He also urged Ukraine to live up to its democratic commitments and
end selective prosecutions.”
In December 2012, Secretary of State Clinton appeared to depart from the Obama
Administration’s reluctance to publicly criticize Russian attempts to assert control over Ukraine
and other former Soviet countries. In a meeting with civil society activists from the region,
Clinton decried increasing repression and human rights violations in the region. She warned that
“there is a move to re-Sovietize the region. It's not going to be called that. It's going to be called
customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union...But let's make no mistake about it. We know
what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it."6
Congressional Response
U.S. Aid to Ukraine
According to the USAID “Greenbook” website, the United States obligated $3.5 billion in aid to
Ukraine from FY1990 to FY2010. According to the FY2012 Congressional Budget Presentation
for Foreign Operations, in FY2011, the United States provided $123.243 million in aid to
Ukraine. In FY2012, Ukraine was slated to receive $113.878 million.
On December 23, 2011, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L.
112-74), which contained foreign operations funding. The conference report directs the Secretary
of the Treasury to keep the appropriations committees informed on the issues of export quotas,
allocation of grain licenses, VAT tax refunds, and repression of fundamental rights in Ukraine,
including due process of law and freedom of expression and association. The conferees also
expressed support for forest management programs and programs to fight tuberculosis and
HIV/AIDS in Ukraine.
6 Associated Press wire service dispatch, December 6, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
11
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
The Administration requested $104.407 million in aid for Ukraine for FY2013. Of this amount,
$53.957 million is allocated to the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account, $27.2 million from the
State Department Global Health Programs account, $7.9 million from the AID Global Health
Program account, $7 million in Foreign Military Financing, $1.9 million in the IMET military
training and education account, $4.1 million in the International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement account, and $2.35 million in the Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and
Related Programs account.
A significant portion of U.S. aid to Ukraine in the ESF account for FY2013 is dedicated to
improving the safety of the Chernobyl nuclear facility, including finishing the construction of the
containment structure over the damaged reactor and securing and storing spent nuclear fuel. Other
ESF programs are aimed at improving governance and increasing the accountability and
effectiveness of the justice system. Global Health funding will help Ukraine fight its HIV/AIDS
crisis, which is the most severe in the region. Security assistance for Ukraine is aimed at helping
Ukraine’s defense reform efforts, improving operability with U.S. and NATO forces, and taking
steps to boost Ukraine’s military capabilities. U.S. assistance has helped Ukraine destroy its stock
of SCUD short-range missiles and make progress toward the elimination of its stock of propellant
for SS-24 ICBMs.
The committee report (H.Rept. 112-494) to H.R. 5857, FY2013 the State-Foreign Operations
appropriations bill, expresses the committee’s concern about “recent declines in democratic
governance [in Ukraine], particularly the abuse of power to create unfair conditions for political
competition, and encourages close monitoring by the Department of State of upcoming national
elections.”
Other Legislation
Legislation on Ukraine was introduced in the 112th Congress. On January 26, 2011,
Representative Kaptur introduced H.Res. 66, which supports the establishment of a staff
exchange program between the House of Representatives and the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s
parliament. On April 14, 2011, Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry introduced S.Res. 153, which
recognizes the 25th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear accident. The resolution was adopted by
unanimous consent on May 9, 2011.
On September 15, 2011, Representative Sander Levin introduced H.Res. 401, which expresses
support for Ukraine on the 20th anniversary of its independence. The resolution also notes
concerns about the Tymoshenko case and other problems with Ukraine’s democratic
development. On October 13, 2011, Representative Kaptur introduced H.Res. 435, which
condemns the persecution of Tymoshenko, former Interior Minister Yuri Lutsenko, and other
political prisoners.
On March 22, 2012, Representative Turner introduced H.R. 4243, the NATO Enhancement Act of
2012. The bill includes reauthorization of programs to facilitate the transition to NATO
membership for eligible countries. However, it makes clear that the fact that Ukraine is no longer
seeking membership “shall not inhibit security cooperation in terms of interoperability, training,
reform, joint exercises, and bilateral exchanges with nations previously designated as eligible to
receive security assistance under this Act.” A Senate companion bill, S. 2177, introduced by
Senator Lugar, contains the same provisions.
Congressional Research Service
12
Ukraine: Current Issues and U.S. Policy
In May 2012, Senator Inhofe introduced S.Res. 466. The resolution condemns the imprisonment
of Tymoshenko as politically motivated and calls for her release. Until she is released, S.Res. 466
calls on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to not allow Ukraine to assume
the chairmanship of the organization in 2013; urges the State Department to withdraw the U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine and suspend embassy operations and initiate a visa ban against President
Yanukovych and others responsible for Ms. Tymoshenko's imprisonment; and calls on NATO to
suspend all cooperation agreements with Ukraine.
In July 2012, Representative Christopher Smith introduced H.Res. 730, which calls on Ukrainian
authorities to release Tymoshenko and other victims of selective justice, and to hold free and fair
parliamentary elections in October 2012. The resolution calls for the United States to deny visas
to Ukrainian officials “involved in serious human rights abuses, anti-democratic actions, or
corruption that undermines or injures democratic institutions in Ukraine, including officials
responsible for and participating in the selective prosecution and persecution of political
opponents.”
An amended version of S.Res. 466 was passed by the Senate on September 21, 2012. It calls for
the State Department to institute a visa ban against Ukrainian officials responsible for the
imprisonment and mistreatment of Tymoshenko, but does not contain the provisions calling for
the withdrawal of the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and other punitive steps set out in the original
version of the resolution.
The Administration has not publicly supported a public visa ban, as called for S.Res. 466.
However, in October 2012, the United States revoked the five-year multiple-entry visa of
Ukrainian Deputy Prosecutor General Renat Kuzmin. The Administration did not publicize the
move; and it only came to light when Kuzmin published an open letter to President Obama on the
Prosecutor General’s website criticizing the decision. Kuzmin has been involved in prosecuting
Tymoshenko. Kuzmin’s visa was reportedly revoked because of a visit to the US in July 2012,
during which he conducted an investigation against Tymoshenko for the murder of a Ukrainian
member of parliament in 1996, without informing US officials of his actions. U.S. officials
denied the decision was related to the passage of S.Res. 466.
In the 113th Congress, Rep. Kaptur has introduced two resolutions on January 14, 2013. H.Res. 27
supports the establishment of a staff exchange program between the House of Representatives
and the Parliament of Ukraine. H.Res. 28 condemns the persecution of Tymoshenko and other
political prisoners in Ukraine.
Author Contact Information
Steven Woehrel
Specialist in European Affairs
swoehrel@crs.loc.gov, 7-2291
Congressional Research Service
13