A hacked document posted on the website DC Leaks, which is back online, reveals that George Soros was the Puppet Master organizing the Ukraine after the Maiden coup.
The document called “Trip report: Ukraine, 31 March – 2 April, 2014” reveals that Soros held a series of meetings with leading politicians and officials, including US ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, to discuss every policy area, but particularly focussing on firing a sleuth of judges and distributing generic medicines.
http://soros.dcleaks.com/
It’s worth glancing at the full report below to get some idea of the extent of Soros’ meddling…
Trip report: Ukraine, 31 March – 2 April, 2014
Trip aims and general conclusions:
GS decided to travel to Ukraine a little over a week before landing in Kyiv to support what he frequently described during the trip as “the birth of a nation.” He explained that “revolutions usually fail” and this time if there is the same outcome as after the Orange Revolution, such an opportunity is unlikely to appear again in the coming decades.
GS emphasized that Ukraine must tackle most of the elite’s “original sin.” In politics or in business, Ukraine’s leadership has been deeply corrupt since its inception. Until there is a behavioral and values change, anti-corruption systems are put in place, and institutions are rid of corrupt officials, the country will fail as a stable democracy. There was general agreement amongst government officials and think tanks that administrative reform is urgently needed.
During the trip, and after a meeting with the new Minister of Justice, GS identified the judiciary as a domain where urgent and deep reform is needed. Unless the Ukrainian judiciary is overhauled it will be extremely difficult to effectively combat corruption, sanction those engaged in graft, and restore citizens’ belief in a state that can defend their rights.
The trip provided an opportunity to better understand current challenges as well as to think through how OSF could assist with new funding and programs. According to GS “Myammar was our number 1 priority, but now it is Ukraine.” He also repeated in several instances that it’s “not only the EU that can save Ukraine but also Ukraine which can save the EU.”
While GS noted that in Ukraine we can work with “soft budget constraints” it is also essential to remain focused on exit strategies and work with “two feet in, one foot out.” To help avoid further conflict inside the country, GS approved the opening of IRF branch offices particularly in the east and south.
Throughout the trip and among a wide number of interlocutors it was agreed that more public awareness campaigns around reform, and with respect to the EU, are needed to address domestic audiences, the EU/US and Russia. The Foreign Ministry requested OSF assistance in getting its message out abroad and with technical advice to improve its strategic communications.
While there is still a lot of nervousness in Ukraine and abroad about the alleged 40,000 Russian troops ready on the border, overall public sentiments seemed much calmer than immediately prior to the Crimea referendum. The large scale pro-Russian demonstrations and violent incidents that led to 3 deaths in eastern regions have largely subsided. Under the threat of further incursions, the Russian government has begun to promote a federalization of Ukraine, which most elites in Kyiv reject, though they are willing to consider greater decentralization. Direct negotiations between the Russian and Ukrainian leadership is not expected until after the May presidential race. Free and fair elections are essential to ensure the president’s legitimacy.
Overall aims of the trip that were accomplished include:
Becoming acquainted with the opportunities and challenges facing Ukraine in the post-Maidan period, before the May presidential elections, to express solidarity with the country’s reform efforts and closer association with the European Union.
Meeting the Prime Minister, acting President, Ministers who work in OSF’s priority areas, major presidential candidates, representatives of the think tank and NGO community, and IRF’s board and program directors.
Agreeing with the government on a high level strategic advisory group to provide policy advice between now and the next parliamentary elections (expected Fall 2014 or early 2015) staffed primarily with Ukrainian experts.
Offering to the government, especially to the Minister of Regional Development, a technical assistance project to assist his ministry replicate and scale up the highly successful e-governance initiative the Minister led as the Mayor of Vinnytsia.
Encouraging the presidential candidates to run an issue based campaign focused on providing solutions to address the country’s economic and geopolitical challenges, especially the fight against corruption. The elections need to be fully free, fair and transparent to restore the full legitimacy of Ukraine’s authorities. There should be no misuse of resources by candidates – such as unfair access to media through their TV holdings.
Showing solidarity with Ukrainian civil society and experts who are pushing their government to make reforms, especially an anti-corruption reform package (reanimation package), and looking for ways to reduce conflict in the east and south of Ukraine.
Supporting the IRF in the implementation of its crisis response strategy and planned 2014-2017 regular strategy
Trip agenda (please see attached)
Main conclusions of meetings:
Governance and donor coordination:
GS committed to giving up to 3mil EUR in 2014 to set up and begin the work of a Strategic Advisory Group (SAG). It will be headed by Ihor Burakovsky (Director, Institute for Economic Research and Policy) on the economic side, and Oleksandr Sushko (IRF Board chair) on the political one. Erik Berglof (Chief Economist and Special Advisor to the President, EBRD) is assisting in setting up the group and has secured the 25% secondment of EBRD expert Alexander (Sasha) Pivovarsky to the project. Erik and Sasha will try to identify other Ukrainians at the bank or other major international institutions who could share their expertise with the SAG.
As articulated by Erik and Sasha, ten principles should guide the work of the SAG (see attachment). According to GS: this program needs to be comprised of two pillars; one which consists of a purely Ukrainian effort to establish what Ukraine has to do, and can do, for itself. The second pillar focused on establishing what reforms Ukraine will need foreign assistance to accomplish, and ensure that international donors are aware of those assistance needs. GS recommended that the SAG advise the Ukrainian government when appropriate on how to proceed in the IMF/EU negotiations.
In our meeting with Prime Minister Yatseniuk, he emphasized his interest in receiving high level foreign advice – ideally to help him devise an action plan for the transition period. To support constitutional reform he would like experts from the Venice Commission or the ECHR; to help with administrative reform he seeks “the person who was in charge of the Polish reforms.” The PM also stated that he needs help for medical and health care reform but has no vision of how to do it (Ukraine-care? he asked). Unsure of hisown political future, the PM seeks help to achieve tangible visible change in the coming months. While he did not immediately understand how the SAG could help him with this kind of foreign expertise, it evidently could as foreign advisers would participate but work in tandem with Ukrainians whose understanding of local realities is essential to assess and monitor the challenges of policy implementation.
It remains to be seen whether the Maidan activists, civil society and experts who support the Anti-Corruption Reform Package and will provide detailed legal and policy advice to the government will work in parallel or as an integral part of the SAG. IRF is currently supporting the establishment of a coordination center within the Cabinet that will work to bring in civil society voices and initiatives when government institutions are dealing with anti-corruption.
It was generally agreed that the SAG’s work should not be limited to economic policy but must deal with political economy and themes therein (trade, social issues, healthcare provision) to have an effective policy advisory and monitoring role. Sasha noted that the SAG’s primary benefit could be to serve as a “firefighting force” offering policy advice in critical moments on issues where nobody else is available to intervene. The EU provides technical support to the government, particularly in the Ministry of Justice, but this tends to be at Ministries’ mid-and technical levels. They are not providing strategic advice or doing coordination.
GS proposed that the SAG could have a three year term but the aim would be to hand over as soon as possible. Other donors should also support the SAG’s work. The SAG could be transferred either to the EU and the government to serve as an EU coordination mechanism or to the Presidential administration to become a National Economic Council heretofore nonexistent. President Turchynov expressed readiness to cooperate with the advisory group but cautiously noted that it would not have access to classified materials or be able to work on security issues.
Ukraine is lacking an effective donor coordination mechanism. As the head of the EU delegation pointed out, it would be useful to have a “single entry point” for government assistance. International donors (UNDP, SIDA) say that there is a donor coordination mechanism under the Minister of Economy but it is new, not yet fully functional, and slow. Big donors who contribute at least 5mil EUR yearly are invited to attend. IRF will ask to be part of this group now that OSF funding has increased.
Ukraine urgently needs constitutional reform and is promising it by fall 2015. But at this point the existing parliamentary committee on constitutional reform is largely closed to think tanks and NGOs. President Turchynov promised that constitutional reform would be re-energized and independent experts included.
In Ukraine there is much nervousness about any reforms that would federalize the country, not least because this is the option that Russia is currently promoting. However there is an understanding among elites that decentralization and increasing local self-governance is needed to combat corruption, increase local participation and avoid new revolutions against the central state.
Poland is already helping Minister for Regional Development Volodymyr Groysman with the provision of assistance on decentralization. OSF would also like to help, especially to support e-governance (with Estonian E-government Academy + Smartmetrics). But since much has already been done over the past 8-9 years to help establish e-governance, and many different donors are active in this sector, it would be most effective to begin with an audit or baseline study to better determine the precise needs and opportunities. SIDA representatives, who also work with the Estonian e-academy to bring e-governance to four western Ukrainian municipalities, agree that a baseline study is needed. Germany, Switzerland and the Council of Europe were noted as international partners that should be contacted when the study is carried out.
It is possible that Ukraine will need better access to broadband internet to be able to implement e-governance effectively, and that high cost of this would require World Bank engagement.
Georgia’s Public Service Hall model may be useful for Ukraine, especially for Kyiv.
Rule of law and judiciary (Justice Minister Pavlo Petrenko):
The Minister started the meeting with GS underlining his commitment to continuing and expanding the legal aid program. Ukraine has an excellent system of free legal aid but lawyers are still owed close to 20 million UAH for legal services provided in 2013 and 1Q 2014 (please see attached letter from the Ministry of Justice). Due to austerity, the Ministry of Justice was forced to cut 16.5 million UAH from its 117.5 million UAH allocated in the 2014 State Budget for the functioning of the free legal aid system. It will be unable to extend legal aid from criminal to civil and administrative cases before January 1, 2015, due to financial constraints.
Ukraine also seeks to set up more than 100 new regional legal aid centers, automate the legal aid process and increase public access to legal services. It is requesting a special three-year (minimum) program of sectoral budget support of approximately 120 million EUR within the framework of the EU’s planned assistance for the development of Ukraine. (see GS’s dinner meeting with Fule for follow up)
The MoJ is also working together with legal experts to reform the law on the bar. GS offered OSF expertise in support.
The Minister described how his priority is to rid the judiciary of corrupt judges. The Ministry has submitted a draft law on judges (first reading) and is now waiting for a full evaluation by the Venice Commission of the law before submitting it further. The law would reform the way judges can be appointed and dismissed and implement a qualification process. While extremely important to restore public confidence in the judiciary, leading Presidential candidate Poroshenko questioned the judiciousness of starting to dismiss judges before May 2014 elections as they will be needed to review complaints.
While supporting the importance of reforming the judiciary, GS pointed out that sequencing and having a sufficient pool of talented uncorrupted persons to replace the old judicial corps is essential. “Almost all efforts at judicial reform fail because the system cannot reform itself” he stressed.
Petrenko admitted that he has little support to begin dismissing judges – from international or Ukrainian experts. There has also already been a ECHR court case by an Ukrainian judge (Volkov) against Ukraine, which the judge won (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115871#{“itemid”:[“001-115871”]}0 and based on which she was reinstated. However there could be effective ways designed to enable judges’ dismissal and Petrenko said that he hopes to do it based on evaluation and re-qualification of judges. GS expressed support saying that this should also be an EU priority where it gives financial assistance to raise judges’ salaries (until the Ukrainian government can pay these salaries itself, hopefully in the mid term).
GS spent much time explaining the dangers of lustration (including by meeting with the soon to be appointed head of the lustration committee Yegor Sobolev). But he also came to understand from local interlocutors, especially on the board, that there is a strong public demand to hold persons accountable for past crimes, due to the perception that the Orange Revolution failed because no one was held ultimately accountable for past wrongs. To deal with this dilemma it could be better to transform the discussion on lustration to how to best undertake comprehensive civil service reform including in the judiciary. Others pointed out that in Ukraine’s heavily divided society instead of lustration we should talk about truth and reconciliation and bring that model to Ukraine. At the same time work on investigating high level corruption, including freezing and repatriating criminally acquired assets, could also continue.
Public health and medical assistance (Minister Musiy)
Minister Musiy described his commitment to rid the Ministry of corruption – as “everyone knows that the Ministry of Health was one of the most corrupt in the country.” He has appointed 15 new advisors and 1 new deputy minister and wants to start by changing the ministry’s leadership.
Parliament is already considering a new bill of public procurement. 2 billion UAH are spent annually on procuring medicine and equipment and this has been an easy target for corruption schemes. To achieve impact in the immediate term, the Ministry has been reorganizing its procurement and distribution system for key medicines. They have already done this for high-blood pressure medications and beginning in January 2015 will do the same for medications for HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and tuberculosis. These efforts should help decrease prices by 30-40%. GS noted that the OSF PHP could assist, especially with advice on the procurement and import of generic drugs to optimize the budget (possibly also with the Clinton Foundation and Global Fund)
The Ministry also plans to establish a new health care system in the coming three years (if the country remains stable) based on self-government (of medical associations) and decentralization. Riding the system of bribery will require higher salaries which are now around $200 per month for a doctor; the establishment of clearer contractual relations between doctors and hospitals, and the setting up of insurance schemes. The Minister would appreciate expertise on how to develop public-private partnerships that don’t exist in Ukraine.
GS offered a loan for the procurement of generic medicines for the first 3 months to be paid back from the state budget. GS also offered to help pay for the treatment of people from Crimea who will no longer be able to receive methadone (some 800 persons) and other such controlled substances under Russian law.
In a later discussion, the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk offered that his wife, who runs her own charity, might be interested in covering the cost of assisting the Crimea patients who need to move to mainland Ukraine to continue their treatment.
Musiy agreed that his Ministry could use advice on how to push back on austerity constraints as 11% of its budget has been cut. IRF noted that it would be interested in facilitating an audit by local experts of MoH expenditure to increase public control. The MoH itself is interested in getting a full institutional, managerial and financial audit by a major international auditing firm. GS suggested bringing in Bob Conrad to Ukraine to provide advice on tax provisions because he has considerable experience working in Ukraine and will be working for OSF full-time over the next year as a Fellow.
EU and foreign issues (Foreign Minister Deschytsia)
Foreign Minister Deschytsia noted the need to reform the whole government, especially the diplomatic service, and to form a coordination body on foreign assistance. A key problem is civil servants’ low salaries which make it difficult to attract educated young talent.
Ukraine’s main challenge now is to implement the Association Agreement; the government needs an Action Plan and to appoint a high level official for liaison with the EU. The EU has said that a condition for its funding will be passage of anti-corruption legislation. There is also no EU coordination mechanism yet and the EU delegation is pushing the government to create one based on three options: a structural unit of the Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, a central executive body with special status under the PM or a Vice PM, or a separate Ministry of European Integration.
Deschytsia agreed that an AA implementation body should be set up, ideally outside his ministry but had no ideas of how or when this would be done. He seemed to think that this was not needed until an EU membership perspective was on offer.
Donors concurred that reform in Ukraine should be closely linked AA implementation. According to a SIDA representative “it should be clear that our assistance is for Ukraine’s integration in Europe.”
Follow up required:
For all:
Consider what can be done to support broad and inclusive constitutional reform
For George Soros:
Contact Jeffrey Sachs, Joe Stiglitz, Bob Conrad and Wiktor Osiatynski about assisting in Ukraine
For IRF:
Assess whether and how branch offices could be opened in eastern and southern Ukraine (Kharkiv, Odessa, Donetsk, Lviv). Identify whether new offices are needed or whether it’s possible to partner with existing local organizations. Identify directors, managers and local boards. The offices could focus on reconciliation, anti-corruption, civic education and decentralization issues.
Translate GS’s article in NY Review of Books into Ukrainian and disseminate to civil society roundtable participants
Start talking to World Bank re expanding broadband access
Assist civil society to lobby the government to set up a coordination mechanism for Association Agreement implementation which is not part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but is influential enough to represent Ukraine at the highest level of EU consultations and instruct other ministries on strategic priorities.
Follow up with the Ministry of Health, particularly to keep public control on reforms and expenditure. Maintain a watch on persons from Crimea and if needed calculate what their needs are in mainland Ukraine. See with Mr. Pinchuk’s wife is she is willing to offer financial support to these patients.
For EP/Sabine/Lenny:
Talk with Smartmetric (Antonio Mugica). See if he or someone from the company wants to travel to Ukraine in April. Link them up with Minister Groysman
Find out the legal status of the ICPS building
Follow up with the e-government academy in Estonia and with Polish experts on decentralization. Find out who would be the best person from Georgia to share experience on Public Service Hall. Consider at some point for Kyiv and other Ukraine municipal authorities a trip to Tbilisi and Batumi to visit their public service halls.
Consider how OSF could support Ukraine constitutional reform. Follow up with Wiktor Osiatynski.
See with Alisher how the grand corruption portfolio/repatriation of criminally acquired assets initiative could be further expanded to include Ukraine. Ensure that Ukrainian groups are included in the OCCRP conference on asset recovery and in other similar initiatives. GS recommended that Global Witness also be contacted.
Continue to talk to the EU about how OSF could cooperate in establishing an EU coordination mechanism using the SAG as a basis
Continue to think how Ukraine can more effectively get its message out: internally, to the EU/US and to Russia
For Ivan:
Consider whether it would be useful to establish a deliberative polling exercise in Ukraine with the help of Professor Fishkin (Stanford, http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/) especially in Fall 2014
Talk to Google ideas about interest in coming to Ukraine?
For Eric/Sasha/Ihor/Alexander:
Develop a list of Ukrainians abroad and high quality international experts that could cooperate in the SAG
Revise the SAG concept based on meeting with PM. Further consider if a National Economic Council for Ukraine makes sense. Develop a new budget for the SAG
For the Public Health Program:
Travel to Ukraine to continue dialogue with the Ministry of Health, especially on the procurement of generic medications and the organization of an evaluation of their budgetary allocations and expenditure (this could also potential be done within the context of the SAG).
Follow up on the provision of health services and medicine to people from Crimea. Determine with IRF the financial needs of those forced to migrate to mainland Ukraine and contact Pinchuk’s wife regarding possible assistance.
Consider bringing in experts or organize a conference to address the issue of social service provision (health) in times of austerity with Greek experts.
For the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI):
With IRF, follow up on the organization of a high level conference on transitional justice, lustration and judiciary reform.
Follow up on judicial reform particularly on how to best sequence it, especially if there is a need to increase judges’ salaries (which apparently start at about $1300/month). Continue to lobby the EU to focus on judiciary reform.
Continue to support the free legal aid program and look for international donors who could help meet the high financial need. Convince the IMF that this is not where austerity should try to cut costs.
Together with IRF provide expertise or other support for reforms of the bar and the prosecutor’s office.
To the EP/EU advocacy team:
Keep advocating for funding to overhaul the judiciary within the EU’s state building program, including salary increases for judges and financial assistance to repay lawyers who provided services within the free legal aid program.
Keep talking to EU officials about the lack of a coordination mechanism in Ukraine for the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (AA) and in the absence of this instrument the utility of cooperating closely with the soon to be created OSF support Strategic Advisory Group (SAG). If a formal EU coordination mechanism is not set up for the next 9-12 months, the SAG could carry out some of its functions (especially helping formulate strategically the country’s priorities and monitoring the implementation of AA requirements) and then hand over to the EU.
Add to advocacy points a recommendation to the EU to lift or diminish their quotas on imports of Ukraine agriculture products to EU and consider providing political risk insurance to companies willing to invest in Ukraine.
Coordinate all our EU related messages with the Ukraine think tank bureau in Brussels.
To the OSF education programs:
Organize a visit by the European University of St. Petersburg to a Kharkhiv university. Consider if more could be done between Ukrainian and Russian universities.
To the Communication team:
Translate the Ukraine video pieces into Russian and develop a distribution strategy for Russian speaking media together with EP and the EP foundations.
Continue to write op-eds and prepare other products to combat the Russian narrative on Ukraine and put a spotlight on Ukraine’s reform effort. Would be useful to help get more cosmopolitan Ukrainians in the western press (especially on TV)
To the Open Society Archive project (who exactly?):
Work with the IRF (Roman Romanov) to provide international expertise to develop Ukraine’s archives to promote the retention of and access to Ukraine’s historical memory. Help enhance the National Memory Institution and develop an open-access archive that would provide Ukrainians and researchers from all over the world with this access to Ukraine’s historical memory, incorporating materials on the Stalinist repressions, the dissident movement, and the documents of the Euromaidan.
Concept of a Strategic Advisory Group on Economic Reform in Ukraine
The Open Society Institute would like to support Ukraine at this critical juncture in its history by helping to organize and finance a Strategic Advisory Group on Economic Reform (SAGER). While the interim government implements the short-term program, works to stabilize the security situation in the country and develops capacity to implement reforms, this initiative would bring together a pool of Ukrainian talent to help prepare a comprehensive reform programme with clear prioritization of measures, with the emphasis on the first year after the Presidential elections as well as the medium term. The group is to prepare the programme within the next three months and then engage in targeted efforts to help support its implementation.
The group will also:
Work in parallel, and in close collaboration, on a systematic effort to engage Ukrainian civil society throughout the process;
Together with the civic society, help provide important inputs into the formulation of a comprehensive support package from the European Union and the rest of the international community and help identify areas of reform requiring international assistance and guide donors towards priority areas;
On occasion, provide ad hoc advice to the government by tapping a pool of domestic and international knowledge and experts that could be drawn to take the reforms forward.
The group is to be supported by a secretariat, which will coordinate all activities and liaise with IFIs and bilateral donors to ensure their buy-in and to avoid duplication.
Key principles for reform program
Written and owned by the Ukrainian policy community;
Inclusive approach with several layers of contributors;
Transparent process with systematic outreach to civil society throughout process;
Incorporate the content and lessons from previous programs;
Overarching programme covering all key areas of reform;
Non-partisan, value based approach;
Contain preamble on the ultimate social model, including respect for basic human rights, the rights of minorities, particularly the Russian minority;
Reform programme should recognise and reflect Ukraine’s geostrategic location and efforts should be sought to find arrangements that both encourage integration with the European Union but also recognize the importance of Russia and the need to develop strong economic links in this direction as well;
Should to the extent possible address issues of political economy and implementation, including administrative and judicial reform as well as decentralisation and political reform as they relate to the feasibility of implementing the programme;
The perspective should be medium-term but identifying priority areas and longer term objective when appropriate; sequencing issues should be addressed;
Consistent with realistic fiscal resources;
Mindful of the need to gain and maintain support of the international community (including in the context of the IMF programme).
Final Agenda
Sunday, March 30
13:30-15:00 Lunch Meeting with IRF Directors of Program Initiatives
Attendees:
GS
TS?
Lenny Benardo (OSF)
Yevhen Bystrytsky
Ivan Krastev
Sabine Friezer (OSF)
Dana Geraghty (OSF)
Inna Pidluska (Deputy Executive Director, IRF)
Natalia Sannikova (Financial Director, IRF)
Stanislav Liuachynskiy (Director, Strategic Communications IRF)
Roman Romanov (Director, Human Rights and Justice Initiative, IRF)
Oleksiy Orlovsky (Director, Democratic Practice Initiative, IRF)
Dmytro Shulga (Director, European Initiative, IRF)
Viktoria Tymoshevska (Director, Public Health Initiative, IRF)
Olena Kucheruk (Acting Director and Manager, Public Health Initiative, IRF)
Olga Zhmurko (Director, Roma Initiative, IRF)
16:30-18:00 Working Meeting
Topic: Economic reform/forming of SAG- a chance to discuss with local experts the economic context and then to pay attention to specific issues of the Strategy Advisory Group
Attendees:
GS
Erik Berglof (Chief Economist and Special Advisor to the President, European Bank of Reconstruction and Development)
Alex (Sasha) Pivovarsky (EBRD)
Ihor Burakovsky (Head of the Board, Institute for Economic Research and Policy, Ukraine)
Yevhen Bystrytsky (Executive Director, International Renaissance Foundation)
Sabine Freizer (OSF)
Oksana Kuziakiv, Executive Director (Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting)
Kostyantyn Kravchuk (Research Fellow, Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting)
Vasyl Yurchyshyn (Director of Economic Programs, Razumkov Centre
Jaroslav Zhalilo (Acting Director, National Institute for Strategic Studies)
20:00-22:00 IRF Board Dinner
Attendees:
1. GS
2. TS
3. Lenny Benardo (OSF)
4. Oleksandr Sushko (Board Chair, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)
5. Ivan Krastev (Chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies)
6. Sabine Freizer (OSF)
7. Dana Geraghty (OSF)
8. Alexandra Gnatiuk (IRF Board Member)
9. Anatoly Tkachuk (IRF Board Member)
10. Ihor Semyvolos (IRF Board Member)
11. Iryna Senyuta (IRF Board Member)
12. Victoria Siumar (IRF Board Member)
13. Yarema Bachynsky (IRF Board Member)
14. Vadym Kastelli (Interpreter)
22:00 Late Meeting
Attendees:
GS
Hryhory Nemyria (MP, Head of Parliamentary Committee for European Integration)
Lenny Benardo (OSF)
Monday, March 31
Kyiv, Ukraine
08:00-09:00 Breakfast Meeting
Attendees:
GS
Geoffrey Pyatt (US Ambassador to Ukraine)
David Meale (Economic Counsellor to the Ambassador)
Lenny Benardo (OSF)
Yevhen Bystrysky (Executive Director, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)
Oleksandr Sushko (Board Chair, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)
Ivan Krastev (Chairman, Centre for Liberal Studies)
Sabine Freizer (OSF)
Jeff Barton (Director, USAID, Ukraine)-guest of the Ambassador’s
Dana Geraghty (OSF)
Moderators: Lenny Benardo and Sabine Freizer (OSF)
10:00-12:00 Meeting- including 15-30 minute private meeting with Interim PM
Attendees:
GS
Arseniy Yatseniuk (Interim Prime Minister, Ukraine)
Pavlo Sheremeta (Minister of the Economic Development & Trade, Ukraine)
Volodymyr Groysman (Vice Prime Minister, Ukraine)
Ostap Semyrak (Minister of the Cabinet, Ukraine)
Advisor of the Minister – name tbc
Assistant of the Vice-Premier- name tbc
Assistant of the Prime Minister- name tbc
Lenny Benardo (OSF)
Erik Berglof (Chief Economist and Special Advisor to the President, EBRD)
Yevhen Bystrytsky (Executive Director, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)
Sabine Freizer (OSF)
Alex (Sasha) Pivovarsky (EBRD)
Oleksandr Sushko (Board Chair, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)
Ivan Krastev (Chairman, Centre for Liberal Strategies)
Vadym Kastelli (Translator)
Moderator: Oleksandr Sushko (Board Chair, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF)
13:30-15:00 Lunch Meeting
Attendees:
GS
<span style="font