Ukraine. The end-game

Peace breaks out in Ukraine, at least for the time being

AFTER all the allegations of murder, corruption and illicit arms sales levelled against Leonid Kuchma during his ten-year presidency of Ukraine, his prospects of being remembered as a statesman are dim. But they brightened a little on December 8th, when Mr Kuchma and the Rada, Ukraine's parliament, agreed a package of laws that have brought some calm to their country's rancorous presidential election - and also to the streets of Kiev, which has been convulsed by demonstrations ever since Victor Yanukovich, Mr Kuchma's preferred successor, was implausibly said to have beaten Victor Yushchenko in the second round of the presidential election on November 21st.

In a decision with happy implications for the independence of Ukraine's judiciary, as well as for a peaceful resolution of the current crisis, the country's supreme court on December 3rd ordered the vote to be re-run. Mr Kuchma and Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, had both opposed that idea. The poll is scheduled for December 26th. But, until Mr Kuchma's deal was struck with Mr Yushchenko and the Rada, it seemed possible that the third round could prove to be just as rigged and controversial as the second.

In the wrangling after the court's decision, Mr Kuchma pushed, as he has long done, for a constitutional reform to transfer many of the powers that he has enjoyed to parliament, where he and his oligarch allies remain influential. Mr Yushchenko wanted new rules to prevent electoral abuses. After further mediation by European bigwigs, both men got most of what they wanted. The president's powers will be reduced, though not immediately; Mr Kuchma may also have won private reassurances about his own future. The bogus use of mobile and home voting will be restricted. And some discredited members of the central election commission, which had declared Mr Yanukovich the winner, have been ejected.

The one big demand not to be met is for Mr Yanukovich to be sacked as prime minister (although the prosecutor-general's head rolled as a consolation). The Yushchenko camp alleges that he exploited this position to warp the most recent round of voting. Mr Yanukovich duly criticised the court's ruling. But, despite being advised by Mr Kuchma to withdraw from the race (and thus to discredit the whole procedure), he also insisted that he would stand in the December 26th re-run. He has taken leave from his post to campaign, and is trying, not very convincingly, to distance himself from Mr Kuchma.

Compromises in the constitutional reform should pacify some of the more radical elements within the Yushchenko camp. Some supporters - notably the youth movement Pora (“It's time”), which has been in the vanguard of the pro-Yushchenko “orange revolution ” - -disliked any notion of negotiating with Mr Kuchma. Yulia Timoshenko, a volatile but important ally, had talked darkly about Mr Kuchma's fate if he did not co-operate. It now looks as if her hard-cop/soft-cop act with the more diplomatic Mr Yushchenko has worked. But another rift opened by the stand-off in Ukraine, between Russia and the West, continues to widen.

Geopolitics may not have been uppermost in the minds of Ukrainian voters. Many want to live as Europeans do, by which they mean well-off and corruption-free, but are less interested in international links. Yet the European Union and Russia are certainly interested in them. Mr Putin, who backed Mr Yanukovich, this week decried Mr Yushchenko's tactics. Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, criticised what the Russians said was the political bias of western election monitors. Colin Powell, America's secretary of state, vigorously denied Russian claims that the West was meddling.

International organisations are scrambling to assemble new monitoring teams for December 26th. As his friends desert him, and failing extreme measures, Mr Yanukovich's chances look slim. But in Ukraine almost anything is possible.

• Primary Source