However, within the former Soviet Empire, the CIS is a sort of successor organisation, being a loose collection of many of the former Soviet states.

Fall of an Empire

With Communist rule being eradicated throughout Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union was financially bereft and on its way to extinction by the late 1980’s.

Its successor was the CIS, or the Commonwealth of Independent States. Headed by Russia as the largest former Soviet state, the CIS comprised of all former Soviet countries except for the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

The CIS was founded on 08^th December 1991 and at the time, it consisted of just three member states – Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. By the end of the month it had been joined by nine further countries with just the Baltic States remaining as notable absentees.

CIS gathers momentum

After declaring independence, many former Soviet countries found it a struggle to come to terms with life outside of a co-dependent empire. This was a view that was neatly summed up in 2001 by Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.

“Today we all realize we just can’t live apart from each other, neither economically, nor politically and socially,” Kuchma said at the time.

Kuchma went on to declare that the CIS had suddenly found itself as a major power on the world’s stage and he likened this sudden realisation to a religious epiphany.

“It took the Commonwealth leaders a whole decade to finally realize this simple truth,” Kuchma added “either we all saw the light, or maybe we’ve been given some help from the Lord.”

For a time, former Soviet nations participated as the CIS in the sporting arena as a single entity and for many casual observers, this brought the new organisation into world view. The simple fact that those former nations now play independently leads to a point of view that the CIS now longer exists but that simply isn’t true.

The CIS today

With Georgia’s withdrawal in 2008, the CIS now consists of ten member states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Although those countries are strictly speaking independent, the CIS still exists to assist with economy and free trade in much the same way as the European Union was set up to do.

Within the CIS, the Russian Federation is by far the largest country and when the Soviet Union fell, it contained 51% of the Communist Empire’s population and 71% of its territory. As a result of that, the UN recognises it as the true USSR successor and across the world, Soviet embassies were renamed as Russian.

USSR successor is a post from: Siberian Light

Georgia 18-11 Romania

The biggest clash of the weekend looked like it would be an easy romp for Georgia, after they roared into a 15-0 lead after just 12 minutes on the back of tries from Vakhtang Maisuradze and full back Besik Khamashuridze.

But then Georgia pretty much fell asleep for the rest of the game, and by all accounts were outplayed by their Romanian guests, particularly their forwards who were surprisingly effective. Although Romania outscored Georgia 11-3 through the rest of the game, they didn’t quite have the cutting edge or attacking flair to overcome their hosts.

Here are some video highlights of the Georgia Romania match.

And you can read more about Georgia’s victory over Romania at the FIRA-AER forum.

Ukraine 5-41 Russia

As expected, Russia secured a comfortable victory over neighbours Ukraine, who have so far been the division’s whipping boys, struggling after their promotion from last year’s ENC Division 2.

Knowing that victory was almost certain, Russia were confident enough to field an experimental team. Tries from Grachev, Shakirov, Fatakhov, Ostroushko and Galinovsky saw them home in a rather one sided affair.

Read more about the match at the FIRA-AER forum – Ukraine 5-41 Russia.

Spain 25-10 Portugal

The surprise of the weekend was Spain’s victory over neighbours Portugal. Until now, Portugal had looked impressive, losing by a single point to Georgia the previous weekend. But they were simply outplayed in Spain, particularly in the second half where Spain turned a 13-10 lead into a comfortable 25-10 victory. Here’s the FIRA-AER forum discussion of the Spain-Portugal match.

Are Georgia European Nations Cup Champions for 2011?

The European Nations Cup is a really odd tournament. It’s played over two seasons, rather than one, to ensure that the teams have the opportunity to play each other both home and away. The upshot of this is that no-one’s ever sure whether they’ve won the title or not.

If, like ROAR, we count just the results from this season, though, then Georgia have won the 2011 European Nations Cup title with a game in hand. As you can see from the table above, they’re eight points clear of second placed teams Russia and Spain, and with only a game to play, neither can hope to overtake the Georgians.

Me, though, I’m a two-season man, so everything’s still up for grabs in my eyes. Georgia might be well ahead, but there’s still a mathematical chance that they could be overhauled across the two seasons (even if there isn’t actually a real chance!).

World Rankings

Regardless of the title position, Georgia’s win means that they rise one more place up the world rankings, up to 14th. They displace Canada, who they beat last autumn, and move within striking distance of Japan.

Romania (18th), Russia (19th), Portugal (20th), Spain (23rd) and Ukraine (30th) all remain in the same ranking spot.

Preview of European Nations Cup Rugby, Week 5

This weekend sees the final weekend of this half of the European Nations Cup season.

The big match is, of course, going to be the Russia-Georgia clash. Russia have underperformed this season, losing to Portugal at home, and then being thrashed by Romania, so they’ll have a point to prove in their last competitive match before the World Cup. Georgia also have a lot to prove – they’ve won all four matches, but in their last two matches have displayed some vulnerabilities.

Both matches between these two countries were played on neutral territory last season, because of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, but this season marks the return of proper home and away fixtures between the two sides. The problem for Russia, however, is that they’ve got to play in Sochi, rather than in their rugby heartlands further north. The last game Russia played in Sochi attracted a miserable 85 spectators. Hopefully some more people will turn up for this bigger match, because if not, Russia are going to be outnumbered by Georgian supporters on their own turf.

A win for Russia is definitely a realistic outcome, but much less likely in the dead atmosphere of Sochi. On balance, I think Georgia are the favourites to win this one.

The weekend’s other fixtures see Romania host Spain, in what should be a fairly comfortable victory for the Romanian Oaks, and Portugal host Ukraine in what is certain to be a comfortable romp to victory for the Portuguese.

Until next week…

European Nations Cup wins for Russia, Georgia and Spain is a post from: Siberian Light

The deal to extend Russia’s lease on the naval base in Sevastapol was ratified by Ukraine’s Rada today, but not without a fight… literally.

Opposition MPs, largely from Yulia Tymoshenko’s bloc, pelted the Speaker with eggs, forcing his aides to shelter him with a pair of (fortunately well placed) umbrellas. MPs also set of smoke bombs and brawled, with one MP reportedly taken to hospital with concussion.

All in all, it sounds like Ukraine’s lawmakers had a high old time, and they certainly gave everyone outside of Ukraine a good laugh. But, leaving aside the damage done to Ukraine’s image as boring farmers, did their lawmakers make the right decision in extending Russia’s lease for another 25 years?

Well, actually, I think that today’s been a pretty good day for Ukraine. By extending the lease until 2042 in exchange for a 30% reduction in gas bills, Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych has negotiated a cracking deal.

In real terms, 30% translates to around $4 billion per year – and over $120 billion over the lifetime of the deal. And all for a naval base that (a) Ukraine probably doesn’t really mind Russia having and (b) if Russia left, Ukraine would have to pay to decommission.

The Financial Times disagree – they think that this deal is a bad one for Ukraine. Politically, the FT mainly seem worried that Russian operatives will destabilize the Crimea, but I can’t see why they wouldn’t be able to do that anyway from just across the Russo-Ukrainian border. And, additionally, deferring the Russian pull-out for another 25 years means that, in a decade’s time, the Ukrainian government won’t have to deal with tensions caused by the pullout. Much better to leave the Russian Navy in place, and take their cash.

(Alexander Golts, of the Yezhednevny Zhurnal, writing in the Moscow Times, by the way, is speculating that Ukraine might have pulled off a stunning coup – because they can take the 30% discount over the next 10 years, and then turn around and kick Russia out of their Crimean naval base anyway. I’m not sure that stealing the Russian bear’s honey, then turning around and kicking it in the nuts is a particularly sensible long term strategy, but it’s a fun idea!)

The FT is also worried that receiving the boost of a 30% discount will stop Ukraine from addressing its real problem – that it gobbles gas like there’s no tomorrow. Here I have more sympathy for their argument. Ukraine consumes three times as much gas as its similarly sized and more productive neighbour Poland. The real challenge for Ukraine’s government is going to be cutting down on gas usage, and lowering the cost isn’t going to help much there. But the problem is that high gas prices risk cutting gas usage by crippling production, leading to a vicious cycle of economic depression. The optimist in me wants to believe that at least a little bit of the savings will be invested in providing more efficient heat and industrial energy – we shall see…

What do you think? Has Ukraine negotiated its way into a good deal, or has the Russian Bear just wrapped Ukraine closer in its cozy embrace?

I'm singin' in Ukraine… is a post from: Siberian Light

It shows the percentage of people in each country with access to the internet in 2008. Red, the predominant colour, indicates that more than 31% of people in that country have internet access.

I’m fascinated, though, to see that one of the countries in Europe with the least internet penetration is Ukraine, where only marginally over 10% of people have access. Does anyone know why a relatively authoritarian country like Belarus has managed to get more than 1/3rd of its people online, whereas Ukraine has only managed 1/10th? Any thoughts on what this means for the development of political debate and free speech in Ukraine?

Why so little internet in Ukraine? is a post from: Siberian Light

Why? Because there’s nowhere else for either side to go. They’ve both pushed all of their bargaining chips into the middle of the table.

Depending on which way you look at this crisis, and who you believe, one of two things has happened in recent days. Either:

• Russia cut off the gas to Ukraine, Ukraine retaliated by taking some of the gas intended for customers in Western Europe, and Russia re-retaliated by shutting off the gas supply to Europe.
• Russia cut off the gas to Ukraine, then accused Ukraine of stealing gas intended for Europe to give it an excuse to cut off the gas supply to Europe.

Either way, the gas supply from Russia to Europe via Ukraine has been shut off. There’s nowhere else for either side to go in this dispute. There are no more gas supplies to cut, and no other sanctions either can apply will do the other side anywhere near as much damage as has already been done.

The heads of both the Ukrainian and Russian gas companies are in Moscow today, and they’ll both be meeting with grumpy EU officials. With nowhere else to go, expect a deal to be done within days, and for all three parties to go home claiming a modest ‘victory’.

PS – for a fascinating primer on the historical background to the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute, check out Jerome Guillet’s post in the European Tribune.

Russia-Ukraine gas dispute – endgame? is a post from: Siberian Light

In a move that has become almost as traditional as Santa’s squeeze down the chimney, Russia is threatening to cut off Ukraine’s gas supply unless a debt of $2 billion is paid by the 1st January 2009. Never ones to deny tradition, the European press are naturally worrying that if Russia cuts off the gas to Ukraine, supplies to Western Europe will also be affected, leaving the British unable to reheat their Christmas turkey leftovers next year.

Usually, a few days after the gas is actually cut off, the EU puts enough pressure on Ukraine and Russia that they come to a deal. But I wonder if it will be as simple this year, in the midst of a global economic downturn that is affecting all the major players.

Ukraine, in particular, may simply find that it doesn’t have the resources to comfortably meet this year’s bill – let alone next year’s, when (as a result of last year’s deal with Russia) gas prices are expected to double from $179.50 per cubic metre to around $400. The Ukrainian economy is in meltdown – consider this list of woes:

• the value of the hryvnia has halved since September (by 12% in just two days last week)
• the IMF had to step in with a $16.5 billion stabilization loan last month
• Ukraine has a total corporate and state debt of $105 billion, and is rated the third least credit-worth country in the world at the moment (after Ecuador, which has just defaulted on its loans, and Argentina)
• Production of steel (which accounts for almost 40% of the country’s exports) halved in November.

Although Ukraine has just paid $800 million of the $2 billion it owes, and is promising to pay more soon, I wonder if it will attempt to withold some or all of the remainder as a bargaining tool against next year’s planned price increases. In the current uncertainty – can Ukraine really afford to see the price of gas double?

Gazprom’s position is an interesting one. The current financial climate means they aren’t as secure, or as confident as they have been over the past few years. You could argue that this means they are more likely to cut a deal with Ukraine, but I’m leaning the other way – Gazprom will be prepared to play hardball with Ukraine if necessary, for fear that any sign of weakness could encourage other Eastern European customers facing hard times that they might be able to save a bit of money on their gas bills. Gazprom have already signalled their intent not to back down by releasing a statement designed to make European customers nervous:

“It is not ruled out that the current position of the Ukrainian side and some of its actions could lead to disruptions in the stability of gas supplies to Europe”

It’s going to be an interesting couple of weeks… we’ll see where we are when we come back after the Christmas break.

Update: By the way, the Gas Exporting Countries Forum are meeting in Moscow this week. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing on the agenda about forming an OPEC-style cartel, but that hasn’t stopped the media from speculating…

It's Russo-Ukrainian gas crisis time! is a post from: Siberian Light

The 25th anniversary issue looks ahead to the next 25 years and, in Russia’s Rotting Empire, Nina L Khrushcheva (yes – before you ask – she’s Nikita Kruschev’s great-granddaughter) has penned a look at Russia’s next quarter century.

It’s an interesting article overall, but there were two things I found particularly interesting.

First – Khrushcheva’s view that political change in Russia is cyclical:

“…periods of ‘remission’ (a retreat from total dictatorship) or reforms, and periods of ‘oppression’ or stability have alternated consistently in the last century…”

I do agree, but wonder – if we accept that Russia is in the early stages of a period of “oppression”, how deep will it go, and how long will it be before the next about turn that leads towards reform. Are we in for many more years of sliding towards authoritarianism and a strong Russian state, or will the more frantic pace of globalisation speed up the Russian political cycle?

The second point, which I found intriguing given the disdain with which many Russians view Ukraine (and the fact that Khrushchev was a Ukrainian), was Khrushcheva’s argument that Ukraine could hold the key to Russia’s future.

“Russians know that Ukrainians are the same as them, a people similar in their culture and mentality. If they have made their choice, why can’t we do the same? Thus, if Ukraine succeeds over the next 25 years, it may herald the political death of Putinism.

[...]The best way to help Russia today is to help Ukraine over the coming decades support its claim that it belongs within the European fold, among European institutions.”

Ukraine is at a bit of a cross roads at the moment, and seems like it could go either way. It is clearly an ideal target for both European / US and Russian foreign policy, and I’d imagine it’s going to be a hell of a cultural and political battleground in the coming years. But I have no idea what direction Ukraine will take.

What do you think? Who will come out on top in Ukraine? Will the next couple of years in Kiev set the tone for the next couple of decades in Moscow?

Does Ukraine hold the key to Russia's future? is a post from: Siberian Light

There had been fears that the current political crisis in Ukraine, combined with a recent Polish match fixing scandal would hurt the two countries’ bid. But, instead, it seems that Italy’s problems with referee corruption, and the recent crowd trouble which resulted in the death of a policeman and forced the suspension of the Italian domestic season, was enough to see the Poland/Ukraine bid through.

As well as that, presentations by the Presidents of Poland and Ukraine undoubtedly helped to turn the tide against Italy:

“We thought the political situation could hamper our bid. There were such speculations circulating in UEFA’s corridors,” Volodymyr Lashkul, the vice president of the Ukrainian Football Federation, told Reuters. “But that didn’t happen. The two presidents who came to the presentation yesterday — Viktor Yushchenko and [Polish President] Lech Kaczynski — made a breakthrough in the situation.”

Just over half of the matches in the tournament will be played in Poland but, to compensate, Ukraine will host the final of Euro 2012 in the Kiev Olympic Stadium.

Neither country has hosted a European or World cup before (although Ukraine did host the 1980 Olympics’ football tournament), so there is a lot of work to be done. In Ukraine alone, six stadiums will need to be either renovated, or rebuilt from scratch in just four and a half years. A tall order, but one that I think Ukraine and Poland will meet.

Poland and Ukraine to host Euro 2012 is a post from: Siberian Light

Two rival protests have been organised in Kiev this weekend. One for supporters of embattled President Viktor Yushchenko, the other for supporters of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich.

The protests are expected to attract tens of thousands each, and I’d imagine there is a significant risk of a clash between rival groups at some stage over the weekend. Particularly as the protests come at a point when President Yushchenko is reportedly considering dissolving Parliament and ordering new elections.

I must confess, I haven’t been following the nuances of Ukrainian politics recently, but I’m a little baffled by this decision. I’d thought that Yushchenko was in a relatively weak position electorally, with his potential support divided between two parties (his Our Ukraine People’s Union party and Yulia Timoshenko’s All Ukrainian Union Fatherland party), whilst his Viktor Yanukovich’s support was more unified.

What do you think? Would dissolving parliament be a wise decision for Yushchenko?

*This image, found on Flickr, was taken by user txd.

Rival protests in Kiev as Ukraine crisis gathers pace is a post from: Siberian Light

Predictably, everyone’s upset, from Ukrainians, who think that she will make Ukraine look silly and recently burnt an effigy of her to make their point, to Russians, who worry that the song’s lyrics:

constitute a direct assault by a wayward neighbour on Moscow itself. At the root of the indignation is a refrain that appears to exhort the audience to sing “Russia goodbye”.

According to Serdyuchka herself, though, its all a big misunderstanding:

His lyrics, he maintains, do not read I want you to sing/Russia goodbye, but I want you to see/Lasha tumbai – which apparently means “churned butter” in Mongolian.

Hmmm – Mongolian lyrics. Another Eurovision first?

Anyway, RFE/RL has a roundup of this year’s Eastern European entries, and you can find a video clip of Serdyuchka in action on the BBC website.

Ukraine picks drag queen for Eurovision – upsets Russians is a post from: Siberian Light