A wish and a prayer for the Ukrainian democrats, please

SerSo

It is your take on Moldova/Transnistria that exemplifies as well as any how biased information can indeed, to lend your phrase, "simplify and misinterpret complex and dangerous situations".

It is rife with misinformation, but as such I assume it merely represents the take that was generally presented on the situation in Russian media. Yet that lends a certain irony to your off-hand dismissal that takes from outside Russia that you don't agree with (about a country that's as close to Austria as it is to Russia), must just be "biased".

The 14th army had "leaked" arms, many thousands of them, quite specifically - and logically enough - to the side in the conflict that was explicitly sympathetic to the Russian state and the region's Russian minorities. It assisted in instructing the Transnistrian troops. Hell - in December 1991, the 14th army's chief commander, General Gennadi Iakolev, accepted the position of Transnistrian defense minister! The 14th army actually involved itself in the fighting in Bendery in 1992, with witnesses testifying it to have sided unequivocally with the Transnistrian militias when the Moldovan army appeared to take back the city, instantly reversing the course of the fight and ensuring Transnistrian victory.

The 14th army also continued to provide the Transnistrian regime with logistical support after Lebed installed himself there. Lebed himself, who used his position in that outpost bulwark of the Russian army to make a name for himself as one of Russia's most prolific nationalist politicians, made it no secret whose side he was on.

Without the support of the Russian bases, the forces that took over Transnistria in name of a Russian and Ukrainian population that even on the Dnyestr's leftbank only ever constituted just the barest of majorities, would never have succeeded in doing so.

You fail to mention that "the central government in Chisinau [which] was then controlled by the Popular Front of Moldova" was also the first democratically elected government of the republic. Unlike Smirnov's regime in Transnistria, which never in its existence held demoratic elections and has in fact consistently and violently repressed its dissenters, imprisoning and torturing several.

Where you write that "The first thing [the Popular Front government] did was a ban on the use of the Russian language", you are plainly wrong. The PF government never "banned" the Russian language. The whole issue focused on declaring Romanian/Moldovan the state language. This did indeed make the Russian minority, which of course in Soviet times was never granted much opportunity or incentive to learn the majority language of the republic, very uneasy - the same it did in Latvia or Estonia. But by speaking of Russian being "banned" you conjure up scenarios in which people were no longer allowed to speak or use it. That's nonsense. The "worst" that was done was the resolution that in ten years time, all civil servants would need to be able to speak Romanian.

Your representation of the maverick General Lebed (who was long considered one of the main figureheads of nationalist opposition to Yeltsin, before his 11th hour sell-out in the 1996 presidential elections) as some sort of neutral, fair broker in the conflict is hard to imagine for any non-Russian. He defied both the Russian government and the various international diplomatic solutions that were in fact negotiated with great trouble by his refusal to live by their rules.

(In spite of your assertion that nothing was done but the "exchange of ultimatums", different diplomatic solutions were in fact arrived at, thanks to eg OSCE involvement. But one of the things they time and again eventually collapsed upon is the consistent refusal of the Russian government to withdraw its troops according to the agreements it had previously committed itself to.)

The current communist government of Moldova does indeed reject the idea of unification with Romania, as does, indeed, most of the opposition now (barring the Christian-Democrats). In fact, the idea of reunification (even if it was a natural enough one to come up in the wake of independence, since Moldova had after all simply been occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union in WW2) was shelved long before. You fail to mention how there were goverments in between the Popular Front one and the current Communist one, of centrist hues, which had already long made clear that unification was off the agenda. In fact, already in 1994, voters in Moldova proper overwhelmingly voted to retain an independent Moldova in its 1990 borders in a referendum. The same year, the Constitution was adapted in order to reinstate the notion, formulated in Stalin's times, that "Moldovan" is a separate language from Romanian. The "threat of unification" card was thus invalidated a long time ago as a justification for Smirnov's Transnistrian fiefdom.

The current communist government of Moldova proper is hardly "rather liberal" itself - it is one of the most frequent offenders of European human rights agreements. "Liberal" it would only be in comparison with Byelorussia or, of course, the Transnistrian outlaw regime, a dictatorially ruled enclave recognized by not a single country in the world.


Basically, you are here blaming a democratically elected government that, in the wake of independence, decided that the majority language rather than that of the erstwhile occupiers should be the language of government, for a violent, separatist insurrection, facilitated by the Russian army's covert support.

You are blaming the "hotheads" who dared want to realise the political programme they were elected in on by a persuasive majority for what, on the Dnyestr's left bank, rapidly devolved into a insurrectionist gangster's paradise.

In this, you - unconsciously perhaps - neatly represent the Russian state's strategy on what it likes to call "the near abroad" since the Soviet Union's dissolution. Destabilise nascent democratic, independent-minded governments by encouraging or arming rebel separatist groups (eg Abchazia), then insist on keeping an extensive military presence in the country to guarantee "stability".

I guess another question would be--do you take Putin at face value re Ukraine?

O'Bill--

I would imagine there will be an investigation about Russia's possible guilt in the voter fraud that marred the last election. That being, I doubt Putin would make any comment that may make him appear as if he had a dog in this fight.

Just your idea or do you have any information on this?

(The Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office has initiated a criminal case of abuse of office by members of the Central Elections Commission already, but against Russia?)

Basic common sense.

FACT--
There was widespread fraud in the last Ukraine election.
REASONABLE OPINION--
There will likely be an inquiry into who took part in the fraud.
FACT--
Widespread speculation points to Putin as having had a hand in it.
REASONABLE OPINION--
Knowing he is suspect, Putin will not make public statements making himself look more guilty that he already appears.

Do you have information or an opinion that refutes any of these statements?

Well, besides that the new General Prosecutor is just a short time in office (although he hold it before as well), I'm not that sure about the possibilities in the Ukrainian law regarding the prosecution of a foreign head of state.

Interesting opinion, though, Lash - I might be wrong, but I've heard that the USA (resp. US-agencies) had had quite some times theirs hands in some elections ...

I don't think Putin's Russia actually had the means to involve itself in the massive voter fraud that was committed in the last round of Ukrainian elections. Logistically rather unfeasible (it's harder to enter the country to arrange a million false ballots without being noticed than to, say, hand-deliver an ampule of poison or something).

That said, it may well have encouraged the Ukrainian government in its intentions to commit fraud, or have it be known that it would not object, or something of the sort.

Serso,

I read your posts with interests and note the consistency and reasonableness of the views you expressed. Unfortunately we don't get enough of that perspective in our news reporting, The "Orange" movement in Ukraine has captured the imagination of the West. Many see in them the expression of their own political hopes and aspirations. That may or may not be true. Many initially attractive political movements were initially seen as similarly attractive an hopeful, including that of Fidel Castro and, as you pointed out, Boris Yeltsin. Others have lived up to their promises. Initial reports of the election so far suggest an Ortange victory. If so I will hope for the best.

It would be unfortunate if the European movement now underway ends up alienating both the United States and Russia. History is not yet over. We have merely seen the end of the chapter that opened in August 1914. We can only guess what will follow.

What does one have to do with the other? Do you want to know if Putin manipulated the vote, or had part in Yuschenko's poisoning--or because the US has been guilty of manipulating elections--just turn a blind eye toward Putin?

Nimh--

Surely it is incredibly easy to financially support the stuffing of ballot boxes--money for bribes, manpower to perform whatever tasks would forward one side's goals, muscle to intimidate... I can't imagine a limit to what could be done with the approval of Putin. If the US was to do such a thing--it would hardly be brought before Congress. Does a country stand responsible, even if the operation is clandestine?

If he really goes from a close victor to a 2 to 1 underdog, that speaks volumes towards fraud. That's a lot of egg on your face, even for Putin. So, I wonder what he's going to say. I would think, all things considered, he almost has to say something. WHAT? :wink:

I sympathise with your position since, as will be clear by now, I strongly suspect covert Russian involvement in the attempt to derail Yushchenko's chances. It fits with the longer-term Russian policy on the near abroad and its further ideologification under Putin. But when it comes to the ballot-stuffing, we shouldn't forget that the Kuchma and Yanukovich sympathisers (to some extent two separate groups) had more than enough motive and opportunity to themselves take on all of that work.

Kuchma must have feared more than his political survival, seeing how some of Yushchenko's prominent supporters (like Tymoshenko) were saying he should be taken to court, for example for the murder of critical journalist Gongadze. And Yanukovich, of course, had his own political victory depending on it and his sympathisers, the guaranteed attention to their region's administrations and economic "machines" by a loyal government they would have helped into power. A lot was at stake, and with both the national and the local government apparatus and their financial resources fully at their disposal, the Yanukovich forces had ample opportunity for fraud, as has been recounted in detail (see here and here).

I totally agree with you about Russian motive, but speculating on a division of tasks, I think Putin would have stayed away from anything that easily uncoverable. Besides, the Yanukovich and Kuchma machines would hardly have needed his money.

Yushchenko is in the lead, according to the latest media reports here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Yushchenko-leading-in-Ukraine-votes/2004/12/27/1103996471365.html

I think one of the major news sources (Reuters'...AP?) has called it.

I'll have a look.

Snippets from MSNBC article--

• Ukraine challenger headed toward victory
Dec. 26: In the Ukraine, opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, recovering from dioxin poisoning, appears to have beaten outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. NBC's Jim Maceda reports from Kiev.

3 exit polls give Yushchenko lead by wide margin
Bitterly fought campaign has divided the country; official results Monday

The Associated Press

Updated: 7:25 p.m. ET Dec. 26, 2004KIEV, Ukraine - Exit polls projected an easy victory Sunday for opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in a bitter campaign that required an unprecedented three ballots and Supreme Court intervention to pick a new Ukrainian leader.

Elated opposition supporters flooded Kiev's Independence Square, the center of protests after the Nov. 21 election that was beset with fraud allegations and eventually annulled. Music blared from loudspeakers and fireworks lit up the sky. In Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych's home base of Donetsk, the streets were largely empty, with only a few people stumbling home from the bars.

The three exit polls projected Yushchenko winning by at least 15 percentage points, and with ballots from just more than 30 percent of precincts counted he was leading with 57.43 percent to 38.89 percent for Yanukovych, election officials said. Final official results were not expected until Monday.

A dejected-appearing Yanukovych, who had the backing of the outgoing Ukrainian president and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, refused to concede defeat in a newsconference begun before the polls closed.

Boris Yeltsin was never looked upon too gladly here in Western Europe actually ... the media and most of the politicians here were firmly on the side of much-loved "Gorby". Gorby brought us peace and disarmament, after all, he let Eastern Europe go free. Gorbachev's subsequent drift to the right (ie, towards ever more orthodox communist allies) after 1989 was mostly blinked at and apologized for.

As Gorbachev's challenger, Yeltsin was seen as the irresponsible "elephant in the china cabinet", much too bold. He gained at most a grudging respect after the failed August 1991 coup, but remained portrayed mostly as a bit of a loose cannon, a drinker and of course oh so far removed from the refined intellectuality of Gorbachev. Never mind that Yeltsin at least had the guts to let the Baltic states and other breakaway Soviet republics go and actually call nation-wide free elections; two things Gorbachev ("I am the center") had always refused to do.

Of course, many of the fears about Yeltsin turned out to be well-founded; he was a bit of a loose cannon, and handled his newly acquired power irresponsibly. Still, he was an effective "destroyer" of what needed to be destroyed - the Soviet system; a system Gorbachev (who to the end called himself a communist) could not decisively cut loose from.

But, re: your point - I don't think Yushchenko evokes in anyone here the kind of idealist fervour a Castro once rallied. There is no starry-eyed, ideologically inspired fellow-travellerdom here. In fact, he'll get a honeymoon of at most a few months before the EU will show him the same "shopping list" of convergence criteria they presented to Kuchma and Kravchuk: economic liberalisation, human rights ... The analysis here is that the EU is actually in a bit of a bind; they obviously want Yushchenko to win and feel that he should - but they're afraid of the imminent hope of EU accession his victory will evoke among Ukrainians, when the EU itself is not at all ready to grant yet another large, poor country on its eastern borders an accession date. At most, the Christian-Democrats want the Ukraine in as counterweight to Turkey - but probably not much sooner ...

Same goes for the vox populi. On the one hand, TV images of cheering protestors chanting for their right to regain democracy, to return to 'European values', instantly evokes sympathy and solidarity. A new 1989! Havel, Walesa! On the other hand, to be brutally honest, I don't think much anyone here is actually waiting for Ukraine to quickly join the EU. Public opinion here is, as you can imagine, quite suspicious right now of yet more poor newcomers at the door of our prosperous Fortress.

The analogy you hint at is thus a false one. There is no fellow-travellerdom. The "Orange" people in the streets command our sympathy of course, but the movement lacks a clear political "hook" into our own debate. The far left is distrustful of the Ukrainian democrats because they're supported by the Americans, the far right resents the implied future EU enlargement. And middle-of-the-road liberals, christian- and social-democrats, whom the Ukrainian democrats have the most affinity with, by rule ain't so starry-eyed.

Everybody knows Yushchenko himself was an apparatchik. That his coalition is a very broad church, with all kinds of people in it. But what the "orange" uprising was about was not a prime belief in the all-knowingness of its leader - Yushchenko was a compromise candidate from the start. It was about being fed up with a President who bribed, fooled, repressed and conspired, a degeneration of the country's chances of proper modernisation that culminated in massive election fraud and, as it happens, the actual poisoning of the opposition candidate. When people rebel against that, it's not hard to choose sides, even if you do not necessarily have much illusions about the virginal purity of its leader.


I would submit that the common American-European support and sympathy for the "Orange" uprising is something that in part re-emphasises our common bonds again, that helps bring Europe and the US together again a bit. With Poland, America's new favourite son in Europe, in a star mediator role.


Same as always ... "I am satisfied that the elections have taken place without major altercations and respect the choice made by the Ukrainian population. I look forward to a fruitful collaboration with the new Ukrainian President and hope that, as closely related nations, we will keep on developing close ties of co-operation." What else? ;-)

Oh , I thought my source was rather "major", too, Lash. :wink:

From the article MsOlga linked in:

Yushchenko claims victory
From correspondents in Kiev
December 27, 2004

OPPOSITION leader Viktor Yushchenko today claimed victory in a re-run of Ukraine's presidential election.

"I want to say this is a victory of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian nation. We were independent for 14 years, today we became free," he said at his headquarters in the capital Kiev.

"Today, in Ukraine, a new political year has begun.

"This is the beginning of a new epoch, the beginning of a new great democracy."

Counting is continuing.


http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11790629%255E1702,00.html


Dunno if this is a premature claim or not!!!

Searching - this was via Google

The previous story same source:

Yushchenko surges ahead
From correspondents in Kiev
December 27, 2004

OPPOSITION leader Viktor Yushchenko holds a strong lead over his opponent in a historic repeat of Ukraine's presidential election.

The central election commission today said that in counting so far the pro-Western Mr Yushchenko had taken 56.33 per cent of the vote.

That compared with 39.86 per cent for his Russian-leaning rival, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich.

The results were based on reporting from 50.96 per cent of the country's polling stations, which number more than 33,000.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11790636%255E1702,00.html

Nimh, (The funny part is; you're probably right.)

The Kyiv Post reports from the Yushchenko rally:



In what reads like a who's who of international funders, the article also runs through the details of the different exit polls: