

Currently released so far... 12553 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
APECO
ASEC
AMGT
AFIN
APER
ACABQ
AORC
AEMR
AF
AE
AR
AGMT
AU
AY
ABLD
AS
AG
AJ
APCS
AX
AM
AMEX
ATRN
ADM
AMED
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AL
ASUP
AND
ARM
ASEAN
AFFAIRS
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AODE
APEC
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AO
ABUD
AC
ADPM
ADCO
ASIG
ARF
AUC
ASEX
AGAO
AA
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
AIT
AADP
ASCH
AORL
AROC
ACOA
ANET
AID
AMCHAMS
AINF
AMG
AFU
AN
ALOW
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ACS
ADANA
AECL
ACAO
AORG
AGR
BEXP
BR
BM
BG
BL
BA
BTIO
BO
BP
BC
BILAT
BK
BU
BD
BRUSSELS
BB
BF
BBSR
BIDEN
BX
BE
BH
BT
BY
BMGT
BWC
BTIU
BN
CA
CASC
CFED
CO
CH
CS
CU
CE
CI
CM
CMGT
CJAN
COM
CG
CIS
CVIS
CR
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTER
CIA
CLINTON
CY
CPAS
CD
CBW
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CDG
CW
CODEL
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CARICOM
CB
CONDOLEEZZA
CWC
CACS
CSW
CIDA
CIC
CITT
CONS
CL
CACM
CDB
CDC
CAN
CF
CJUS
CTM
CBSA
CARSON
CT
CLMT
CBC
CEUDA
CV
COPUOS
CTR
CROS
CAPC
CAC
CNARC
CICTE
CBE
ECON
ETRD
EIND
ENRG
EC
ELAB
EAGR
EAID
EFIS
EFIN
EINV
EUN
EG
EPET
EAIR
EU
ELTN
EWWT
ECIN
ERD
EI
ETTC
EUR
EN
EZ
ETC
ENVI
EMIN
ET
ENVR
ER
ECPS
EINT
EAP
ES
ENIV
ECONOMY
EXTERNAL
EINN
EFTA
ECONOMIC
EPA
EXBS
ECA
ELN
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENGR
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
ELECTIONS
EIAR
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
ENERG
EFIM
EAIDS
EK
ETRDECONWTOCS
EINVETC
ECONCS
EUNCH
ESA
ECINECONCS
EUREM
ESENV
EFINECONCS
ETRC
ENNP
EAIG
EXIM
EEPET
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
ERNG
ETRO
ETRN
EINVEFIN
ICTY
IN
IS
IR
IC
IZ
IA
INTERPOL
IAEA
IT
IMO
IO
IV
ID
IRAQI
IEA
INRB
IL
IWC
ITU
ICAO
ISRAELI
ICRC
IIP
IMF
IBRD
ISLAMISTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
ILO
IPR
IQ
IRS
IAHRC
IZPREL
IRAJ
IDP
ILC
ITF
ICJ
IF
ITPHUM
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
IACI
IBET
ITRA
INR
IRC
IDA
ICTR
IGAD
INRA
INRO
IEFIN
INTELSAT
INTERNAL
INDO
ITPGOV
KWMN
KSCA
KDEM
KTFN
KIPR
KCRM
KPAL
KE
KPAO
KPKO
KS
KN
KISL
KFRD
KJUS
KIRF
KFLO
KG
KTIP
KTER
KRCM
KTIA
KGHG
KIRC
KU
KPRP
KMCA
KMPI
KSEO
KNNP
KZ
KNEI
KCOR
KOMC
KCFC
KSTC
KMDR
KFLU
KSAF
KSEP
KSAC
KR
KGIC
KSUM
KWBG
KCIP
KDRG
KOLY
KAWC
KCHG
KHDP
KRVC
KBIO
KAWK
KGCC
KHLS
KBCT
KPLS
KREL
KCFE
KMFO
KV
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVPR
KTDB
KSPR
KIDE
KVRP
KTEX
KBTR
KTRD
KICC
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KDEMAF
KMRS
KRAD
KOCI
KSTH
KUNR
KNSD
KGIT
KFSC
KHIV
KPAI
KICA
KACT
KHUM
KREC
KSEC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCMR
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KNAR
KNUC
KPWR
KENV
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KPRV
KOM
KBTS
KCRS
KNPP
KWNM
KRFD
KVIR
KTBT
KAID
KRIM
KDDG
KRGY
KHSA
KWMM
KMOC
KSCI
KPAK
KX
KPAONZ
KCGC
KID
KPOA
KIFR
KFIN
KWAC
KOMS
KCRCM
KNUP
KMIG
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KTLA
KCSY
KJUST
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MX
MCAP
MO
MR
MI
MD
MK
MA
MP
MY
MTCRE
MOPPS
MASC
MIL
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MU
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MZ
MEETINGS
MG
MW
MAS
MT
MCC
MIK
ML
MARAD
MV
MERCOSUR
MTRE
MPOS
MEPP
MILITARY
MDC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MRCRE
MAPS
MEDIA
MASSMNUC
MC
NZ
NZUS
NL
NU
NATO
NP
NO
NIPP
NE
NH
NR
NA
NPT
NI
NSF
NG
NSG
NAFTA
NC
NDP
NEW
NRR
NATIONAL
NT
NS
NASA
NAR
NV
NORAD
NSSP
NK
NPA
NGO
NSC
NATOPREL
NW
NPG
NSFO
OPDC
OTRA
OIIP
OREP
OVIP
OSCE
OEXC
OIE
OPRC
OAS
OPIC
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFFICIALS
OECD
OSCI
OBSP
OFDA
OPCW
ODIP
OFDP
OES
OPAD
OCII
OHUM
OVP
ON
OIC
OCS
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PINR
PTER
PARM
PREF
PM
PE
PINS
PK
PHSA
PBTS
PRGOV
PA
PORG
PP
PS
PGOF
PL
PO
PARMS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PAK
POL
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PBIO
PINF
PNG
PMIL
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PAO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PTBS
PCUL
PROP
PNAT
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PROG
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
PGOC
PY
PCI
PLN
PDOV
PREO
PGIV
PHUH
PAS
PU
POGOV
PF
PINL
POV
PAHO
PRL
PG
PRAM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLICY
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGGV
PHUS
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PEL
PSI
PAIGH
POSTS
PBT
PTERE
RS
RU
RW
RM
RO
RP
REGION
RSP
RF
RICE
RCMP
RFE
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
RUPREL
RELATIONS
ROOD
REACTION
RSO
REPORT
SENV
SNAR
SCUL
SR
SC
SOCI
SMIG
SI
SP
SU
SO
SW
SY
SA
SZ
SAN
SF
SN
STEINBERG
SG
ST
SIPDIS
SNARIZ
SNARN
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SAARC
SL
SEVN
SARS
SIPRS
SHUM
SANC
SWE
SHI
SYR
SNARCS
SPCE
SYRIA
SEN
SH
SCRS
SENVKGHG
TRGY
TSPL
TPHY
TSPA
TBIO
TI
TW
THPY
TX
TU
TS
TZ
TC
TH
TT
TIP
TO
TERRORISM
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TL
TV
TNGD
TD
TF
TP
TFIN
TAGS
TK
TR
UNSC
UK
UNGA
UN
US
UNHRC
UG
UP
UNMIK
UNHCR
UE
USTR
UNVIE
UAE
UZ
UY
UNO
UNESCO
USEU
USOAS
UV
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNEP
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDP
UNPUOS
UNC
UNAUS
USUN
UNCHC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCSD
UNDC
USNC
USPS
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 06KIEV1261, UKRAINE ELECTION 2006: WINNERS, LOSERS, TRENDS
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #06KIEV1261.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
06KIEV1261 | 2006-03-30 14:51 | 2010-12-01 21:30 | CONFIDENTIAL | Embassy Kyiv |
Appears in these articles: www.spiegel.de |
VZCZCXRO7198
PP RUEHDBU
DE RUEHKV #1261/01 0891451
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 301451Z MAR 06
FM AMEMBASSY KIEV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8475
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 KIEV 001261
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/30/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV KDEM UP
SUBJECT: UKRAINE ELECTION 2006: WINNERS, LOSERS, TRENDS
REF: A. KIEV 1186
¶B. 05 KIEV 4590
¶C. KIEV 1081
Classified By: Ambassador, reason 1.4 (b,d)
¶1. (C) Summary: While the results of Ukraine's March 26
parliamentary and local elections are not yet final, and
negotiations to form a majority Rada coalition have not yet
concluded, it is already clear that the elections highlighted
a number of winners and losers, as well as trends in
Ukraine's developing political landscape. Fundamentally,
voting for the Verkhovna Rada reinforced the results of the
ultimate Orange win in the 2004 presidential election with
remarkably similar aggregate numbers: a majority of
Ukrainians supported politicians/parties with overtly
pro-Western, pro-reform orientations. The 2006 results also
confirmed substantial shifts in the electorate from the 2002
Rada election. Besides Western-oriented, pro-reform
Ukrainians, winners were, first and foremost, the Tymoshenko
Bloc (BYuT), and secondarily Party of Regions and the
Socialists, plus the Democratic Initiatives Polling firm and
newly empowered locally elected authorities. The biggest
losers were Rada Speaker Lytvyn as an individual and
President Yushchenko's People's Union Our Ukraine as a party,
secondarily Orange splinter forces like Kostenko's Ukrainian
People's Party, Pora-Reforms and Order (Pora-PRP), and Yuri
Karmazin's Bloc, as well as pro-Russian hard oppositionists
Natalya Vitrenko, the SPDU(o), and the Communists. Comment:
With only five parties in the Rada, and Vitrenko forced to
reprise her role as a street-protest gadfly, the Ukrainian
political scene may actually be more stable than many had
feared leading up to the election, even though the same
intra-Orange squabbling and Orange-Blue battles are almost
guaranteed to continue in 2006 and beyond. End summary and
comment.
The real winners: Ukraine, those who were on the Maidan
--------------------------------------------- ----------
¶2. (C) While election tables from the 2006 Rada elections
will show that Regions received a 32-percent plurality, the
real winners of the March 26 election were Ukraine and the
Ukrainian people themselves, which pulled off the most
successful election among former Soviet republics outside of
the Baltics, along with a majority of Ukrainians who had
embraced a fundamentally pro-Western, pro-reform future in
2004 by voting for Yushchenko and then taking to the streets
to prevent Yanukovych and the Kuchma regime elements from
stealing victory. Despite incompetence and intra-Orange
squabbling by the "Maidan" team in office, significantly
lower growth figures, and disillusionment among ordinary
Ukrainians in 2005, voters on March 26 delivered a remarkably
similar percentage of votes to the parties who stood together
on Maidan as they had to Yushchenko in 2004; just over half
the voters voted for Orange parties or similarly oriented
forces. In the December 2004 presidential re-vote,
Yushchenko received 52% of the vote to Yanukovych's 44.
(Note: With 99.95 percent of precincts reporting, the Orange
forces of BYuT, Our Ukraine, and the Socialists will have 243
seats in the Rada, or 54 percent.)
Party winner: BYuT
------------------
¶3. (SBU) Based on expectations heading into the election, the
runaway winner March 26 appears to be BYuT, which most
pre-election polls for months had predicted would finish
third with around 15% of the vote. In the competition for
Maidan votes, BYuT bested Our Ukraine handily, some 22% to
14%; BYuT won pluralities in 13 central and western Ukrainian
oblasts plus Kiev, compared to only three for Our Ukraine.
BYuT also more than tripled its 2002 Rada vote (7.2%).
Furthermore, BYuT built organizations in eastern and southern
Ukraine, often running second to Regions; only BYuT and the
Socialists can currently lay claim to being truly national
parties. BYuT may have benefited from being out of
government, tapping into voter discontent, as well as being
led by the most charismatic of Ukrainian politicians, Yuliya
Tymoshenko. But BYuT's effective grass roots organization
and focused campaign tactics deserve a great deal of credit
(ref A). That leaves BYuT and Tymoshenko herself
well-positioned for future election cycles (2009
presidential, 2011 Rada).
Secondary winners: Regions and Socialists
-----------------------------------------
¶4. (C) While many Western press stories immediately labeled
Yanukovych and Party of Regions the "victors" in the March 26
vote based on their plurality, Regions' success is more
nuanced. Regions did not aspire to be a national party in
Kiev 00001261 002 of 004
this election cycle; instead, as Yanukovych told us in early
November 2005, Regions was running to protect its base in the
east and south against the Communists and Vitrenko (ref B).
Regions ran a well-financed, well-organized campaign,
successfully consolidating that base, which had largely voted
Communist in the 1998 and 2002 Rada elections. Regions won
the nine oblasts plus Sevastopol that Yanukovych carried in
2004, securing slightly more than two-thirds of the support
Yanukovych received then. Employing American consultants
rather than Kremlin operatives to advise it on tactics and
outreach to the media and Western interlocutors, Regions also
partially rehabilitated an image tarnished by its attempts to
steal the 2004 election. Regions' challenge looking forward
will be to develop a strategy that appeals beyond its base.
¶5. (SBU) The Socialists (SPU) can also be considered a
secondary winner in the 2006 cycle, even if they aspired to
more than the 5.7% they received in their predicted
fourth-place finish. The Socialists expanded a nationwide
party structure and polled nearly evenly across the country,
the only such Ukrainian political force to do so; they
confirmed party leader Olexander Moroz's 2004 presidential
first-round third-place support (5.8%), which pushed them
past the Communists for the first time as Ukraine's leading
"leftist" (in traditional European terms) force (ref B).
While the Socialist niche is modest, it is well-defined, with
a generally forward-looking, positive political agenda (its
economic ideas, however, remain antediluvian). The SPU
succeeded despite that fact that it being in power deprived
it of the chance to tap into the protest vote, which had
contributed to the SPU's 6.9% showing in the 2002 Rada
elections.
Democratic Initiatives and the Exit Poll Consortium
--------------------------------------------- ------
¶6. (SBU) The widely respected Democratic Initiatives (DI)
polling firm should also be considered one of the winners of
the 2006 election cycle. Alone of Ukraine's major polling
firms, DI captured the crucial dynamic of the campaign end
game -- BYuT surging, and Our Ukraine slipping -- in its
final published poll March 10 (note: Ukrainian law bans
polls two weeks prior to elections). While the Institute of
Social and Political Psychology of the Ukrainian Academy of
Pedagogical Sciences showed BYuT ahead of Our Ukraine in its
final March 10 poll, it did not have a track record of
previous polls; all other polling firms showed Our Ukraine
holding onto the 3-4% lead over BYuT it had enjoyed since
mid-January. Democratic Initiatives combined with the
Razumkov Center and the Kiev International Institute of
Sociology to run an exit poll March 26 that accurately
predicted the final results of the election, within their
stated margin of error.
Local and regional elected officials
------------------------------------
¶7. (SBU) The winner in the Kiev mayoral race, Leonid
Chernovetsky, shocked everyone in besting not only incumbent
Mayor Omelchenko but also ex-WBC heavyweight boxing champion
Klychko, running on the Pora-PRP ticket. Chernovetsky ran a
stealth campaign which clearly managed to secure a larger
share of the anti-Omelchenko vote than Klychko.
¶8. (SBU) Finally, other winners in the March 26 elections,
but which received little attention internationally, are the
oblast, town, and district councils that were elected along
with mayors. Under constitutional reform and the delayed
administrative reform, which will serve as a counterpart to
changes in governance at the national level in Kiev, these
provincial and local bodies will receive more resources and
authority in the coming years. The elections under
proportional representation clarified allegiances to voters
previously faced with many unaffiliated local strongmen,
improving accountability; the election also gives the
councils a clear democratic mandate in negotiating with the
center, including the unelected governors appointed by Kiev.
The Big Losers: Lytvyn and Our Ukraine
--------------------------------------
¶9. (SBU) The biggest individual loser of the 2006 election
cycle was undoubtedly Rada Speaker Lytvyn, whose eponymous
bloc failed to reach the 3-percent threshold for the Rada,
leaving Lytvyn out in the cold. Lytvyn's bloc spent more
money on advertising than any other party but Regions,
according to official Central Election Commission (CEC)
figures, and Lytvyn commanded 63 MPs in the current Rada, 15%
overall. Lytvyn's campaign suffered from fatal flaws,
however. It lacked any real organization beyond a collection
of "names" at the national and local district level, many of
whom were tainted with the Kuchmaist label (note: Lytvyn
Kiev 00001261 003 of 004
served as Kuchma's chief of staff prior to becoming Rada
Speaker in 2002). The Lytvyn bloc had no real message for
voters, beyond proposing itself and Lytvyn as a "referee" to
reunite Ukraine between warring Orange and Blue factions. In
the end, Lytvyn's vote total barely topped 600,000, the
number of members his party claimed to have.
¶10. (C) The biggest party loser was Yushchenko's People's
Union Our Ukraine (PUOU), the core of the Our Ukraine
election bloc, which defied pre-election polls to slump into
third place and below 14% on election day.xxxxxxxxxxxx had told us in late January that
PUOU's organization was in complete shambles, would stagger
to the election, and would need to rebuild from the ground up
afterwards. Pre-election provincial visits confirmed
xxxxxxxxxxxx gloomy assessment; Our Ukraine had no visible,
effective organization outside of Lviv and several other
western provinces, relying primarily on a slick, expensive TV
campaign and Orange Revolution nostalgia. Voters did not
respond.
¶11. (C) Our Ukraine's disappointing performance -- which has
been characterized by many as a defeat for Yushchenko -- is
also a reminder that Yushchenko's electorate in 2004 voted
for him out of several motivations, not just in favor of
Yushchenko. One early 2005 survey indicated that only 37
percent of those who said they had voted for Yushchenko had
done so primarily because they supported Yushchenko
personally; 34 percent did so primarily to protest Kuchmaism,
and 29 percent did so primarily to defend their right to
choose. PUOU's party leadership is currently dominated by
the same unpopular Orange oligarchs -- Poroshenko, Zhvaniya,
Tretyakov, Chervonenko -- who Yushchenko was forced to
jettison in the September 2005 government shakeup, but who
still form Yushchenko's "kitchen cabinet." Our Ukraine's
poor organization for the 2006 election cycle does not bode
well either for Yushchenko's presumed run for re-election in
2009 or for the next Rada cycle in 2011, unless it follows
xxxxxxxxxxxx advice and rebuilds its organization.
The Orange Splinters - repeating the mistakes of the 1990s
--------------------------------------------- -------------
¶12. (SBU) Two of the more organized party elements of the
initial five-party Our Ukraine bloc that won a 23.6%
plurality in the 2002 Rada elections, Yuri Kostenko's
Ukrainian People's Party (UPP) and the Reforms and Order
Party (PRP), decided to run independently from the Our
Ukraine bloc in 2006, primarily because of disagreements with
Yushchenko and his entourage. In doing so, they repeated the
mistake both made in 1998, when they ran separately and
failed to reach the threshold. While both factions will
enter a variety of city and provincial councils with their
modified blocs (Kostenko-Plushch, Pora-PRP), their vote
totals in the Rada race (1.9 and 1.5%, respectively), along
with that of Our Ukraine MP Yuri Karmazin, who ran separately
(0.7%), were lost.
Pro-Russian hardliner opposition - marginalized, for now
--------------------------------------------- -----------
¶13. (SBU) Regions' heavily pro-Russian campaign rhetoric
(pro-Russian language, anti-NATO, pro-Single Economic Space
with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan) undercut the appeal of
two parties who made the trio of issues the center of their
campaigns: Natalya Vitrenko's People's Opposition Bloc
(2.9%) and the Ne Tak! bloc centered around the SPDU(o)
(1.0%), along with the Communists (3.7%). Vitrenko ran a
vigorous street campaign, falling just short of the
threshold. The SPDU(o), which received 6.3% of the 2002 Rada
vote, bought extensive billboard ads throughout urban Ukraine
but had no organization or street presence whatsoever. The
2006 results and disappearance from the political scene
confirmed the loss that it and its leader Viktor Medvedchuk
suffered in 2004 as the most reviled force behind the
excesses of the Kuchma regime. While the Communists will
have 21 seats in the next Rada sitting, their 2006 showing is
but a shadow of the 20% they received in 2002. They ran a
nearly invisible campaign; their dedicated electorate is
dying off, and Regions has effectively taken the eastern and
southern anti-Kiev protest vote that voted communist in 1998
and 2002.
¶14. (C) It would be a mistake to write off the pro-Russian
marginalized opposition completely, however. Vitrenko has
proven staying power on the streets of Ukraine, with many
observers suspecting she receives financial support from
Russia. If Regions ever transforms itself into a more
Western-looking, reform-oriented force, part of its
disgruntled "protest" electorate will likely turn elsewhere
to voice its discontent. With the Communists dying and the
SPDU(o) disappearing, Vitrenko may well finally make it into
Kiev 00001261 004 of 004
the Rada as the next protest vehicle.
¶15. (U) Visit Embassy Kiev's classified website at:
www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/kiev.
Herbst