Yushchenko to transfer assets in the United States. Pinchuk merges Yatsenyuk. Yanukovych teaches English. We Tymoshenko – two campaign headquarters.

«ProUA» studied the work of headquarters and found that in elections with an eye to winning involves only Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. And then one of the candidates more waiting than working.

It turns out that Viktor Yushchenko has already figured in the summer of their future. That’s when the American vice-president Joe Biden brought the news that Obama, unlike the previous administration, it has not seen the president of Ukraine. After that Yushchenko would not only put paid to the revival of “Our Ukraine” to create a campaign headquarters. He began to pack suitcases in the literal sense of the word.

In late summer with the Zhitomir airport to send a few planes in Canada. According source closer to the Presidential Secretariat, there were two or three “side”, led by first lady uvezshih extensive collection of antiques collected by Viktor Andreyevich for many years.

Sources in the PR and the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, Yushchenko enthusiastically watching all the time in his presidency, believe that the Canadian property through diplomatic channels exiting the U.S., home of Chicago-born Kateryna Yushchenko, Over recent years the areas of real estate in your own hometown. Note that according to financial disclosure president, members of his family in recent years spent on maintenance of assets abroad more stable than the Ukrainian real estate.

Prudence wife of the president means that Yushchenko could not agree on security guarantees with any of the main contenders for victory, as in his time managed to Kuchma and Yeltsin. Indirect confirmation of this can be found in the words of the president yet. September 24 before flying from the U.S.: “I will come back in six months.” Something similar, he said, when his BP fired him from the Cabinet in 2002. But then, Yushchenko promised that he would return by the President. Now, about his status, he kept silent …

Another kind of foresight shown Sponsors Arseniy Yatsenyuk. By mid-September, his staff had time to learn about $ 30 million, most of which came from Viktor Pinchuk and Leonid Yurusheva. At the same time, sociologists have documented overflow of the electorate from Yatsenyuk to Sergei Tigipko. Private study BYT, a recent structures Mykola Tomenko showed that Arseny lost in the rating of nearly two per cent and fell to 10%, whereas Tigipko went into stable 3,5%. And even before the massive release of television time.

It was the final argument for sponsors – they are billed, finally forcing the headquarters Yatsenuk refuse to work for the victory. Sept. 18 head of the Committee of Voters of Ukraine Oleksandr Chernenko at the press conference said that the headquarters of Arseniy hires members of precinct election commissions (PECs) at the rate of three people on board. And a week later in some areas who wish to get the job received from the ball.

Recall, each presidential candidate is entitled to two members to the PEC. This cost (usually it includes also the “buckwheat” to voters) – the largest staffs in the estimates of real candidates. For members of the PEC must protect the result of the candidate in the day and night vote. Their feedback indicates that Yatsenuk now rely only on an ad campaign whose ultimate goal now is to maintain a recognizable candidate in the calculation of future elections to the Rada.

Of course, a failing campaign Yatsenyuk (for sponsors actually paid for the drop in ranking) – this is not the only reason for “merging” of the candidate. In fact, the decision confirms the correctness of Staff Yatsenyuk sources “proUA”, even in July, spoke of the intention of Viktor Pinchuk withdraw its candidate into third place in the first round with a further “sell” rating to the most probable winner of the second round. At the time, this seemed Viktor Yanukovych. Now the oligarchs in this not so sure. Especially in anticipation of the final privatization of “Aerosvit”. In which is extremely interested Viktor Pinchuk.

Thus, the actual list of candidates down to two people. But the work staffs are radically different.

Rating superiority and adulation surrounding Mr. Yanukovich had turned his head so that he already sees himself as president and banal waits until the Dnieper not swim the corpse of his vragini.

And in order for the bank was not exactly boring, leader began to study English. Not just to forsonut in the United States, where he is going in the near future, and to easily communicate in the international market presidents.

Such confidence discouraged to impropriety. A striking example – blocking Rada under the pretext of raising social standards. Out of this stupid situation Yanukovych can not jump because the nerve center “regionals” simply not come up with other chips, which you can switch after the collapse of the “social” issues. And that direct question, Boris Kolesnikov, ruled by the ideology of the election headquarters AVE.

Bewildered People’s Deputy in a conversation with proUA not ruled out the cause of “unready”: “Akhmetov wing” is not trying to merge Yanukovych, but not to escalate the relationship with Tymoshenko. The year 2004 did not want to repeat.

Especially now that in times of crisis, Akhmetov, even approximately, can not spend on Yanukovich as much as five years ago. On the one hand, he himself had been reduced revenues. On the other – Yanukovych no longer wants to take Akhmetov controlling stake.

According to sources “proUA”, Viktor Yanukovych in the beginning of this year finally settled with the donor for the money spent by his staff during the 2004 elections flops. The final amount of calculation, according to various sources, could reach $ 460-500 million

Therefore, Yanukovych announced the collection: “From the faction and the Donets Basin on a thread – Leader of the crown. Minimum fee – a million dollars. In return, promised a place in the future list for elections to the Rada. Up to seven million comes the promise of leadership in state corporation. Ministerial post draws ten million. However, the donor understands the value of election promises: the formation of the future Cabinet will still have dovznosit, now it is about money, giving in the future the right to “recall, you promised.” So are thrown off everything, even businesses that have entered into talks with Tymoshenko.

Meanwhile, the headquarters, more staffs, most of the Prime Minister is on full. The viability of pro-government majority is too dependent on the outcome of elections. In times of “crisis” coalition with one foot on the threshold of the PR were Zhevago, Buriak, Vasadze and Khmelnitsky altogether passed. Therefore, in case of victory businessmen can vote for dismissal “in the name of stability.” Precisely to avoid new early elections, and hence the new charges. One of the “regionals” predicted proUA: «The day after the election we will have 270 votes for her resignation.”

For the sake of victory staffs really tense. There even appeared a well-known political consultant Yuri Levenec. The one that in 1999, along with Alexander Volkov made by President Kuchma, and in 2004 almost did not repeat the success already with Yanukovych.

Levenec occupied a high place in the hierarchy of the official headquarters. He even entrusted with instructing the People’s Deputy to the “freedom of speech. But his name is often too tight association with the group, referred to as “a group of lawyers” ( “proUA” already indicated dissatisfaction with the “security officials” “lawyers”, sometimes developing into netsenzurschinu, and sometimes in criminal cases.)

And discontent manifested in the creation of yet another campaign headquarters. Sources attribute this initiative the same Turchinov (in the main headquarters were not included many of his minions) and Bogdan Gubsky (did not get the staff in general, although the 2007 elections, played an important role in the campaign). On the functions of the staff yet to be known. The sources attributed this invisibility that Tymoshenko has satisfied the actions of the head office. And, then Turchinov can not afford to offer an alternative. Therefore forced to prove its usefulness in harness with their opponents.

In any case, future elections have already identified the main trend: working against the headquarters of the Olympic peace. Winning one, and has played only among the two.

PS After the publication Bogdan Gubsky commented «proUA» situation in the headquarters of Yulia Tymoshenko: “We have no shadow staffs. As a member of the official headquarters, there is no point in creating a shadow headquarters. BYT known fact that we have no shadow schemes, BYT – completely transparent structure. And the work of the central headquarters, we completely transparent. Therefore, information on any shadow, or “black”, or technological staffs do not correspond to reality. In my opinion, such shadow staffs need those political structures, which are famous for their corrupt activities. Whether for stealing money, or to bribe voters.

Many Western European governments, which had been cool from the outset to a unilateral U.S. project they regarded as gratuitiously provocative towards Russia, greeted the American decision with relief.

In a major speech in Brussels on Sept. 18, an obviously pleased NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen declared that “it is possible for NATO and Russia to make a new beginning and to enjoy a far more productive relationship in the future.” Outlining his vision of harmonized global defense architecture, the former Danish premier said that “NATO wants Russia to be a real stakeholder in European and international security … a partner in resolving the great issues of our time.”

A “new beginning” and partnership is both possible and desirable. The Ronald Reagan-Mikhail Gorbachev vision of a pan-European entente suddenly has a new lease on life. It appears certain that Russia will respond to the American decision by scrapping plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic enclave which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. It is to be hoped that Moscow will also take a second look at its nuclear cooperation with Iran. In addition, Moscow can further upgrade its already essential role in keeping the U.S. mission in Afghanistan viable.

While Washington should not expect great rewards for correcting a mistake – and the missile shield has always been a deeply flawed concept – Moscow would be well-advised to work with the U.S. when and where possible so as to maintain the cooperative momentum.

If this happens, the obvious next move for the Obama Administration would be to call off further NATO eastward expansion into Ukraine and Georgia, neither one of which possesses the qualifications for membership in any case.

There is a better option for Kyiv and Tbilisi than NATO accession: a declaration of neutrality. Such a move would promote peace, stability, and the reduction of tensions throughout Europe. It would also be a powerful expression of full sovereignty on Ukraine’s part.

U.S. policy on this issue has already undergone a significant shift—from enthusiastic advocacy of NATO expansion under former U.S. President George W. Bush to qualified support for Ukraine’s “Euro-Atlantic integration” on condition that Kyiv meets membership criteria. The shift reflects the more nuanced approach of Obama’s team, motivated by its evolving strategic priorities. A major new report by the American Institute in Ukraine points out: The quiet acceptance by a growing segment of Western decision-makers on both sides of the Atlantic that there will be no NATO expansion along the Black Sea coast any time soon is a welcome development. Encouraging an impoverished, practically defenseless nation – such as Ukraine – to join a military alliance against the superpower next door, thereby stretching a nuclear tripwire between them, had never been a sound strategy.

Obama’s challenge is to strike a balance between the desire not to be seen as appeasing Russia and the need to improve U.S.-Russian relations. He can square this circle and achieve a diplomatic coup by obtaining positive responses from Moscow now, while preparing his next move. That move should be to take NATO expansion definitively off the table.

This would be a low-cost decision, with pluses heavily outweighing minuses. Western Europe—especially Paris, Berlin and Rome—would support such a move even more enthusiastically than it has greeted the scrapping of the missile shield.

It would disabuse discredited Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili of any dreams of revenge, underwritten by the West, for last year’s failed aggression. It would help Ukraine redefine it strategic priorities in the aftermath of Yushchenko’s imminent departure after the Jan. 17 presidential election.

Above all, it would pave the way for a genuine Northern Alliance that includes Russia, Europe (European Union and non-European Union, including Ukraine) and North America, as all three face similar threats in the decades ahead.

Anthony T. Salvia, who worked in the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan and also for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, is executive director of the Kyiv-based American Institute in Ukraine. He can be reached at salvia@aminuk.org. The organization’s website is www.aminuk.org. The privately funded U.S. non-profit organization focuses on American-Ukrainian relations, especially Ukraine’s possible accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.

Bucking their nominal leader, Yushchenko’s parliamentary faction Our Ukraine – People’s Self-Defense signed a formal coalition agreement with Tymoshenko’s and Rada Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn’s factions on Dec. 16. After several days of intrigues, 37 out of 72 Our Ukraine members joined the coalition, forming a coalition of 213 deputies – still short of the 226 majority.

The signing of a new coalition deal caused a bitter split in the faction and resignation of its leader, Vyacheslav Kyrylenko, and deputy head Roman Zvarych, who remain loyal to the president. “I think that the faction’s decision [to join the coalition] is moronic, and I cannot be a leader of a moronic faction,” said Zvarych.

Mykola Martynenko and Borys Tarasyuk are among the candidates vying to lead the faction, while the split and alienation of Yushchenko from his own party will continue. “The president’s influence on the faction will continue to decrease,” said Taras Stetskiv, an Our Ukraine – People’s Self Defense deputy who also supported the coalition of three. “Yushchenko ignored his chance to allow the whole OU-PSD faction to join the coalition and lost his only chance for becoming its leader.” Stetskiv predicted that eventually up to 60 people will sign the coalition agreement.

While the pro-presidential camp continued to fight, other ex-presidential allies, ex-Rada speaker Arseniy Yatsenyuk and ex-Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko announced that each of them is starting their own political movements. Yatsenyuk’s is named Front of Changes while Hrytsenko’s movement is called Civil Position. Both may become political parties

Ukrainian tabloids have published quite a number of articles on Andrei’s adventures in Dubai, when he bought Chanel bags worth $500,000 for his girlfriend.

He also became known for ordering a bottle of champagne with oysters for 2,000 euros ($2,768) at Kiev’s most luxurious nightclub.

Andrei Yushchenko was originally spotted with a new girlfriend Elizaveta (Liza for short) in the middle of the summer of 2008.

Everyone thought that it was just another girlfriend for the adventurous young man. It became known afterwards, though, that Andrei organized a ‘meet the parents’ party at his father’s home in Kiev.

President Yushchenko reportedly had nothing against their wedding.

Liza is only 21 years old, but she owns a luxury apartment in one of the most prestigious neighborhoods in Kiev.

She frequently attends fashionable parties in Monte Carlo and Courchevel and buys clothes from latest collections of world’s most renowned designers.

She appeared on front pages in a company of wealthy businessman Roman Gurevich. However, when Yushchenko’s son paid his attention to her, the woman decided not to miss such a chance.

Andrei Yushchenko thus had to accomplish a difficult goal to outstrip businessman Gurevich behind in terms of his generosity.

Andrei can be a very good match at this point: he lives in a 600 square-meter penthouse apartment. His fellow-students say that he owns a platinum Vertu cell phone worth 43,500 euros ($60,000).

He usually leaves $500 tips at restaurants and spends there not less than two or three thousand euros. He is the only owner of BMW M6 in Kiev ($130,000).

President Viktor Yushchenko uses the symbols of the orange revolution to let his son lead his idle life.

The orange revolution brand (orange scarves, mittens, hats, flags, etc) is evaluated at $100 million, experts calculated.

The Ukrainian Souvenir company sells orange revolution photo albums, watches, cigarette lighters and mugs, while Andrei Yushchenko simply has to go to the bank to get some cash.

Andrei’s previous girlfriend, Anna Pavlovich, enjoyed the orange fruit too. The couple booked a $2,500-a-night hotel room during their holiday in Turkey.

In the meantime, Andrei showers his new girlfriend with luxury. He ordered to pack everything that Liza would choose at a Chanel boutique and spent $500,000 to please the girl.

On the other hand, we even have little old ladies, those who have been alive long enough to remember the brutality of the Stalin era, sagely opining on how “Ukrainians are being self-important and disrespectful” just because they wish to remember their dead, or how, honestly, Ukrainian lives don’t really matter in all this at all, considering that if the peasants had only laid down for daddy Stalin, they wouldn’t have “deserved” such punishment (I’m not kidding or exaggerating right now – the whitewashing of the Stalin era continues to this day).

I’m not going to say that the truth is in the middle. There is no truth. The only truth are millions of dead bodies, stacked on high from Ukraine, to Kuban, to Kazakhstan.

An authoritarian Russian government cannot simply look back at the Stalin period in particular and declare it to be terrible. That would go against the very nature of authoritarianism. This is why we have the present charade going on in regards to the Holodomor – it’s all “how DARE those uppity Ukrainians! What about the people starving along the Volga?” What about them, indeed? Those people were victims as well. Are Russians encouraged to remember them? Is the world?

Was the Holodomor a genocide? It was, if you expand the definition of what genocide means. Although Ukraine was targeted specifically due to Stalin’s desire to crush and destroy the merest thought of independence, it was a specific class – the peasants – who bore the brunt of the famine.

The peasants resisted unfair collectivization and paid for it dearly, with their lives and the lives of their children.

However, the ethnic element of Holodomor must also include tales of how many of the perpetrators – the ones who literally took the food out of the mouths of Ukrainian peasants – were ethnic Ukrainians sitting pretty in the lap of the regime. It seems perfectly logical. You don’t put a population as large as the Ukrainian population on its knees without many collaborators. So for all of the cries of “it was the Russians” (not stated officially but heard often nonetheless), I have to say that there was nothing so simple and clear-cut about the Stalin years. I mean, Stalin himself was Georgian. You don’t hear cries of “it was the Georgians” – not until it suddenly becomes politically expedient, anyway.

The Russian government, in its snide dismissals of the Holodomor legacy, cannot deny the very simple fact that it does not want to remember the Russians who died in the famines as well. Their bodies are only trotted out as a human flesh for the rhetorical cannons aimed against Ukraine.

Despite my dislike of Yuschenko – often so kindly described in the Western press as a “pro-Western” politician, when he is in fact a pro-Yuschenko politician – I have to admit that for all of his bluster, he has stopped short of the kinds of excesses that Russian public personae have committed when speaking about Ukraine. When Medvedev speaks of a “so-called Holodomor,” you can feel the hatred, that which journalist Dmitriy Gordon (himself a controversial figure) has described as “Russian superpower chauvinism,” rising up like bile.

I hate Russian superpower chauvinism, for social and personal reasons, not the least of which have to do with having a Russian mother and a father who declares himself Ukrainian (his own father’s Russian ethnicity having no importance to him in the matter).

The saddest thing in all of this – besides the millions of emaciated dead bodies, besides children being chased by raving cannibals – is the fact that Russia and Ukraine are still neighbours, they still have a shared history, they still have a future that’s going to see us closely entwined. And that future looks ugly, ugly enough so that children like me are being forced to choose sides, as if being forced to choose between two squabbling, divorced parents, whom they will never stop loving, no matter what.

Since 1999 prospective Nato members have had to follow a roadmap known as the Membership Action Plan (MAP) to qualify for membership. At a Nato summit in Bucharest in April President George Bush pressed for Ukraine and Georgia to be awarded the MAP, but he was defeated by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany who argued that such a step would increase friction with Russia.

The summit agreed a contradictory compromise, denying the two countries the MAP while stating they would eventually become Nato members. The summit instructed today’s meeting to review those decisions. With British and east European support, the Americans argued last night that the deadlock could be broken by pushing ahead on the membership path outside the MAP.
Germany, Spain, Italy and others disagreed, contending that there could be no Nato membership process without it.

“The whole discussion around the MAP has become so politicised that it has lost its sense. It has turned into something of enormous political symbolism,” said a senior US official. “We should just try to put it aside.”

The British have sought to bridge the divide by proposing that the MAP procedure remains valid, but that Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership bids be processed through two separate commissions between Nato and the applicants.

The main European countries reject this. On balance they view Georgia as the bigger villain in the August war with Russia, regard Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili as untrustworthy, believe that political instability in Ukraine makes it unsuitable for Nato, and are anxious to avoid further confrontation with Moscow.

“There is no consensus,” said a senior Ukrainian official. “The MAP will not be given to Ukraine. The issue has been removed from the agenda.”
Rather than enhancing Nato security, both post-Soviet countries represent a security risk for the alliance, argues the west European camp.

Diplomats and analysts say that the transatlantic split is such that today’s session will produce a formula that effectively replicates the conflicting signals sent in Bucharest. They add that the Bucharest decision was a mistake that contributed to the Caucasus crisis in August.

The issue of Nato membership for the two countries is intimately linked with western policy towards Russia, currently incoherent and contradictory.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France earlier this month backed Russian calls for a major summit next year to try to redefine Europe’s “security architecture.” An international foreign ministers’ meeting in Helsinki later this week could see Germany, France, Russia, and Finland supporting the summit, which is also opposed by the US and Britain.

“We have good European security institutions,” said the senior US official. “The institutions that exist are sound. I am not convinced we need a new architecture.”

A senior European diplomat said the Russian proposals could be considered but that the Americans had to be involved in any discussion about European security.

“The first thing the Russians need to do is explain what they have in mind.”

“A candidate for speaker is not the only subject of the negotiations. We are negotiating the possible reconfiguration and resignation of the government,” he said.

It is necessary to reach political consensus against the background of the world financial crisis, Yanukovych said.

“Although parliament forces have different ideologies, they should find a common ground for unification,” he said.

Yanukovych has suggested a moratorium on political issues that split the Ukrainian society. It is necessary to quit ‘unfriendly rhetoric’ concerning a Ukrainian strategic partner, Russia, and to think about things that may unite Ukraine, he said.

Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko urged parliament groups to unite and form a coalition in the response to the world financial crisis in her televised address to the nation on October 19. She also voiced the readiness for government reconfiguration.

“I suggest an urgent reconfiguration of the government and the formation of a cabinet that can protect Ukraine from the world financial crisis,” she said.

On Wednesday, President Medvedev announced Russia would install its advanced short-range Iskander missiles in the country’s western-most region, Kaliningrad, in order to counter the U.S. anti-missile shield.

Rood said that Medvedev’s announcement was disappointing. However, a Moscow-Washington dialogue on the issue would continue. He said he was going to meet his Russian counterpart in about two weeks to discuss missile defence as well as other topics, including a U.S. proposal to further limit strategic nuclear weapons on both sides.

Moscow has repeatedly expressed its opposition to U.S. plans to deploy ten interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, saying it would threaten Russia’s national security.

In 2002, the Bush administration abandoned the Cold-War era anti-ballistic missile treaty. Some experts say that Barack Obama may decide to revisit the plans and cut spending on the shield, which may ease current tensions with Russia.

Poland, however, says the U.S. will continue its strategic partnership in placing elements of its anti-missile defence system in the eastern European country.

A statement from the Polish President and Prime Minister’s offices say U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has already assured the country’s leaders of his intentions. The press office announcement says Obama stressed the importance of the strategic partnership between Washington and Warsaw.

The president-elect also said America’s plans to install parts of its AMD system on Poland’s territory are still in force.

In August, the USA signed an anti-missile defence treaty in which Poland agreed to host U.S. interceptor missiles on its territory.

The protestors also want the former independent television station – Imedi TV – to be returned to its rightful owners, the family of Badri Patarkatsishvili who died in London in February this year.

A former news programme director and the leader of one of the opposition parties Georgy Targamadze said:

“We are here to support the last independent TV station in Georgia – Imedi TV. We think that this day is the best symbol for Georgia’s new history. We should be more democratic and listen to our people”.

November 2007 protests: one year on

The mass protests started in front of the parliament building in Tbilisi on November 2, 2007, with the opposition demanding Mikhail Saakashvili’s resignation, and an immediate parliamentary election.

On the fifth day of demonstrations, when about 60,000 people were rallying in the capital, the police started dispersing the crowd using sound guns, tear gas and water cannons against protesters. Hundreds of protesters were injured in the clashes.

It happened live on air. To watch the footage, please follow the link.

RT correspondent Ekaterina Azarova and cameraman Evgeny Litovko were among those caught up in the police crackdown during a live broadcast. They suffered tear-gas poisoning.

On November 8 the Georgian government declared a nationwide 15 day state of emergency and silenced opposition news channels.

A year on, many complain that things are no better, and the former head of Imedi-TV’s news programmes, Giorgi Targamadze, believes last year’s events on November 7 have become a symbol of Georgia’s modern history.

“We tried to have a direct dialogue with the authorities but there is no response,” says Kakha Kukava, the opposition Conservative Party leader.

Several thousand people have gathered in front of the Georgian parliament building.

The United Opposition press centre said the protest rally will finish in the evening, but after that opposition leaders are going to the countryside to meet the local population.

The leaders also plan to hold a session of all Georgian opposition forces in December and establish a joint political organisation.

“If the authorities do not meet our demand to hold snap parliamentary and presidential elections next spring, opposition leaders and supporters will start an indefinite protest rally on April 9, 2009,” the opposition press centre said.

Zaza Vashakidze plans to be one of the first to demonstrate on the streets of Tbilisi – he says he has nothing better to do as he’s unemployed.

He used to work as an economist in a company that did business in Russia. But after this summer’s war in South Ossetia, he believes that for as long as Mikhail Saakashvili remains President, his future looks bleak.

“We need real free elections which will help us to solve the problems we have faced, and try to overcome the damage the current government caused to our country, our nation and the whole Caucasus,” Vashakidze says. “They have created a ‘for show’ state, a ‘for show’ democracy, but it does not work!”

But it’s very difficult in Georgia today to hear the voice of the opposition. All media outlets support the government.

And opposition parties themselves have come under fire for being disjointed and disorganised.

“We can’t say that the Georgian opposition is strong, as it is alienated,” says independent analyst Mamuka Areshidze. “Those opposition leaders who entered parliament can’t even be called an opposition, as they are controlled by the government. All the others are alienated and they don’t have charismatic leaders who Georgian people trust and who could make people follow them.”

It seems Saakashvili will be facing more discontent on the streets of his capital, but the opposition will have to get itself into shape if it ever wants to replace him.