← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Centinel

The Facts on the Ukrainian Melodrama (Srdja Trifkovic)

Thread ID: 15791 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2004-11-26

Wayback Archive

Centinel [OP]

2004-11-26 22:31 | User Profile

From Chronicles Magazine: [url]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsViews.htm[/url]

November 24, 2004

NEWS & VIEWS EXCLUSIVE:

THE FACTS ON THE UKRAINIAN MELODRAMA

by Srdja Trifkovic

The media myth: An East European "pro-Western, reformist democrat" is cheated of a clear election victory by an old-timer commie apparatchik. A wave of popular protest may yet ensure another Triumph of Democracy a la Belgrade and Tbilisi, however. The fact: neither the winner of the presidential election in the Ukraine, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, nor his Western-supported ultranationalist rival Viktor Yushchenko, are "democrats" or "reformers" in any accepted sense. They differ, however, on the issue of the Ukrainian identity and destiny in what is a deeply divided country. Ukraine is like a large Montenegro, split between its Russian-leaning half (the south, the east) and a strongly nationalist west and north-west that defines its identity in an unyielding animosity to Moscow. The prediction: "The West"—the United States, the European Union, and an array of Sorosite "NGOs"—will fail to rig this crisis in favor of Yushchenko: the critical mass that worked in Serbia in October 2000, and in Georgia in 2003—the complicity of the security services and mafia money—is simply not present.

The myth is virulently Russophobic. It implicitly recognizes the reality of Ukraine's divisions but asserts that those Ukrainians who want to maintain strong links with Russia are either stupid or manipulated. This view has nothing to do with the well-being or democratic will of 50 million Ukrainians. It is strictly geopolitical, in that it sees Moscow as a foe and its enemies (Chechen Jihadists included) as friends. Radek Sikorski of the American Enterprise Institute even hinted that Washington may have to take up arms to face the threat from a reconstituted empire. Three days before the election Georgie Ann Geyer asserted that the Ukrainian vote "will decide whether Vladimir Putin's Russia can again be a formalized, or informalized, empire," and demanded action to prevent such outcome. Complaining that America is too "obsessively sidetracked" by Iraq to pay attention to this momentous election, Ms. Geyer stated the alleged options. The Ukrainians

"have a clear choice. They can vote for Viktor Yuschenko, the reformist candidate who stands for joining the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and NATO as soon as possible, for strengthening Ukrainian nationalism, and for the interests of Western Ukrainian Christians and the Ukrainian diaspora in the West. His people [are] mirroring the idea of the ‘Velvet Revolution' that freed the Czech Republic from its Soviet era. Or they can vote for Viktor Yanukovych, the candidate of the Eastern Ukraine, where many Ukrainians speak a language called Surzhik, a bastardized combination of Ukrainian and Russian. Here, the huge Soviet-era enterprises like Donetz steel still dominate the economic state, and Moscow still dominates the mind-set? Putin's dreams of a renewed Russian empire cannot be fulfilled without the Ukraine. It's the pivotal piece in that puzzle of nations, the linchpin between East and West—and it could be the revolt of the borderlands against the metropole, should Yuschenko win."

This theme was replicated a thousand-fold on both sides of the Atlantic: Yushchenko good, Yanukovich bad. It is telling that later in the article Ms. Geyer referred to "the progressive Ukrainians," implying that there are those who are on the side of History in its forward march, and the rest. (Her reference to the southern Russian dialect widely spoken in the southern and eastern half of Ukraine as "a bastardized combination of Ukrainian and Russian" was scandalous, on par with calling Sicilianu a bastardized combination of Italian and Arabic, or Yiddish a bastardized variety of German.) Propaganda disguised as fact was rampant. Votes in the heavily pro-Russian Donetsk and other eastern regions were deemed "probably falsified" but we were not informed of equally credible claims that vote-rigging was rampant in Yushchenko's western Ukrainian strongholds, including turnouts in excess of 100 percent of registered voters, total local media control, and multiple voting by persons in possession of numerous IDs belonging to Ukrainians residing in western Europe.

The attempted technique was well rehearsed. Yushchenko has rejected Yanukovich's victory and claims fraud, pointing to exit polls by his supporters as evidence. He even proclaimed himself president, and tens of thousands of his followers have taken to the streets of Kiev in support of his claim. Their campaign of civil disobedience relies on expectation of support from Washington and the EU. The White House declared that Ukrainian authorities should not certify results "until investigations of organized fraud are resolved." Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime Minister, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, called outgoing President Leonid Kuchma to express the EU's "serious concerns." NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer summoned the Ukrainian ambassador to express the alliance's "disappointment" with the way the election was handled. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, declared that the election showed massive fraud. Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president and leader of the 1989 "Velvet Revolution," urged Ukrainians to keep up their protests.

Strong Western bias in Yushchenko's favor has been evident throughout the campaign. The monitoring of election abuses has focused exclusively in areas favorable to Yanukovych but it has ignored or even suppressed documented abuses in pro-Yuschchenko areas. A seasoned Western analyst who visited western Ukraine reported that the news media "is all under Yushenko's control, even state TV":

"During our three days in Transcarpathia we never saw Mr. Yanukovich once on the TV! They showed Yushenko, Kuchma voting but ...not him!! Completely out of order programme on Saturday night (during the so-called election silence) with ‘experts' talking about the likelihood of fraud interspersed with stars, rock singers, beards etc. wearing orange ribbons and rooting for Yushenko. In fact, Yushenko and the mob control Kiev and all points West."

Reports like this one are so unpopular with those who control Western media and NGO purse strings that we have to protect our source with anonymity. USAID's grant for election monitors went only to activists known for their hostility to Yanukovych; they delivered predictable results. It is ironic that some of those activists are also funded by billionaire George Soros—President Bush's arch-enemy—whose investment in Yushchenko's victory is said to be $75 million. "Two generations ago we had the Comintern," says a Western analyst familiar with the situation. "Now we have the Demintern and its related NGOs which have an increasing global reach."

The "Community of Democracies" illustrates the point. According to the State Department, "The United States is a strong supporter of The Community of Democracies (CD), a unique forum that brings together those nations committed to promoting and strengthening democracy worldwide." It has a symbiotic relationship with a number of NGOs through which the U.S. Government promotes "democracy" in foreign countries—meaning political candidates favored by the U.S. government. These NGOs (see this list) include the Open Society Institute that in a domestic context are anything but supportive of the Bush administration. Some are creatures of the National Endowment for Democracy (e.g., [url]http://www.wmd.org[/url]) while others had begun as projects of the Open Society Institute, e.g., [url]http://www.demcoalition.org/html/home.html[/url]. It also should be noted that CD is itself handing out U.S. government money to these NGOs, and even had advertised a current solicitation. Bogus NGOs, such as the Committee of Ukrainian Voters, use Western funds to employ presentable, educated English speakers. As John Laughland noted in the Spectator,

"Because they speak English, the political activists in such organisations can easily nobble Anglophone Western reporters. Contrary allegations—such as those of fraud committed by Yushchenko-supporting local authorities in western Ukraine, carefully detailed by Russian election observers but available only in Russian—go unreported. So too does evidence of crude intimidation made by Yushchenko supporters against election officials."

All facts which contradict this morality tale were suppressed, says Laughland. Thus a story had been widely circulated that Yushchenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign, allegedly because the government wanted to kill him, but no English language outlet has carried the interview by the chief physician of the Vienna clinic which treated Yushchenko for his mystery illness: "The clinic released a report declaring there to be no evidence of poisoning, after which, said the chief physician, he was subjected to such intimidation by Yushchenko's entourage—who wanted him to change the report—that he was forced to seek police protection.

"You see the whole apparat," says our source, "a conclave of governments, friendly (and government funded) NGOs, and contract opportunities. Something for everybody—and all for ‘democracy.' Y'gotta love it!"

The reality is that the apparat will fail on this occasion. A Serbian or Georgian scenario cannot work in a country in which the key elements of power—the police, the army, and the business community—have not decided to support the opposition. The key to Milosevic's downfall was a secret deal between his political enemies and Serbia's key security chiefs in advance of public protest. Even if the authorities in Kiev accede to Western demands and investigate fraud or conduct a recount, the results are unlikely to change because they reflect a political landscape too complex to be reduced to the NGO black and white paradigm. It includes the unreported fact that Yushchenko's supporters included notoriously anti-Semitic skinheads from the "Ukrainian National Self-Defense" (Unso), a semi-paramilitary movement whose members enjoy posing for the cameras carrying rifles and wearing fatigues and balaclava helmets.

The influence of UNA-UNSO among Yushchenko's supporters is well documented. In June 2004,

"400 members of UNA paraded through Kiev dressed in Nazi-like uniforms and carrying flags with SS-style inscriptions. UNA leader Eduard Kovalenko reportedly called for an end to 'the dominance of Yids in key positions of the government.' The UNA also came out strongly in support of Our Ukraine and Yushchenko."

These youths rely on a rich tradition. Tens of thousands of western Ukrainians collaborated enthusiastically with the Nazis, supplying volunteers for the "Nightingale" Police Battalion and the Ukrainian Waffen SS Division "Galizien." Useless as a fighting force against the Red Army, these volunteers were highly effective in terrorizing Jews, Poles, and "unreliable" Ukrainians. Many were deemed reliable enough to serve as auxiliaries in key extermination camps such as Sobibor and Treblinka. Today the UNA-UNSO members use their grandfathers' insignia. Their former leader Andry Shkil was elected to the Ukrainian parliament in a single ticket election in the Lvov region with the support of Yushchenko's Our Ukraine. A Jewish organization points out that at the time elections were held he had been in jail for a year, accused of organizing mass anti-government riots. Having been elected, however, "Shkil was granted immunity to criminal prosecution."

As John Laughland notes, "Were nutters like this to be politically active in any country other than Ukraine or the Baltic states, there would be instant outcry in the US and British media; but in former Soviet republics, such bogus nationalism is considered anti-Russian and therefore democratic."

About a half of all Ukrainians who voted for Yanukovych did not do so solely on the grounds of his pro-Russian outlook, however. As the Financial Times noted on November 19, strong economic growth of 13 percent has helped his campaign of "peace and stability." This year's grain harvest will reach 45m tones, the highest since Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. Increasing social spending, including payment of pensions and state salaries, are attributed to the Prime Minister's policies. By contrast Yushchenko's stronghold in western Ukraine is an economic wasteland. Nikolas Gvosdev was a rare Western commentator to point out that for many in central and eastern Ukraine increased links with Russia translate into greater prosperity: trade turnover in goods and services between the two countries is expected to reach $20 billion in 2004, one-half of Ukraine's current GNP. By contrast, its trade with the EU accounts for only a fifth of the total. "Many Western observers lament Ukraine's continuing economic and political ties to Russia," Gvosdev says, "but U.S. and European governments have done little to provide more concrete economic incentives for change." Yushchenko's campaign was not helped by a statement earlier this year by the president of the European Commission Romano Prodi that Ukraine will "never" be a member of the EU. Despite all the rhetoric supporting a "European" the scenario of Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration was not seriously entertained in any important Western capital. It was unrealistic to expect the Ukrainians to make a plunge without any concrete promises of what they'd get in return.

Washington would be well advised to accept the result with equanimity. As Doug Bandow of CATO Institute says, the United States and Europe aren't going to "lose" Ukraine: it will continue to expand its commercial and political ties with the West regardless of outcome. On the other hand, excessive insistence on the preordained outcome would unnecessarily alienate Russia at a time when her cooperation is sorely needed in the war against Jihad.

Okiereddust

2004-11-27 02:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Centinel]As John Laughland notes, "Were nutters like this to be politically active in any country other than Ukraine or the Baltic states, there would be instant outcry in the US and British media; but in former Soviet republics, such bogus nationalism is considered anti-Russian and therefore democratic." There's the answer! Let's all find a former Soviet Republic to move to!

Washington would be well advised to accept the result with equanimity. As Doug Bandow of CATO Institute says, the United States and Europe aren't going to "lose" Ukraine: it will continue to expand its commercial and political ties with the West regardless of outcome. On the other hand, excessive insistence on the preordained outcome would unnecessarily alienate Russia at a time when her cooperation is sorely needed in the war against Jihad.[/QUOTE]So Srdja is against the Yushenko anti-Semites, and for Cato?

Its not just the situation in Ukraine that's complex! Interesting article still

Jack Cassidy

2004-11-27 05:21 | User Profile

It's funny, but I imagine most of us here at OD knew the gist of this simply based on who was saying things and how they were saying it. Even the pathetic shill prop, Colin Powell, all but threatened Ukraine.

What I'd like to know is whether anyone in these former Soviet republics-- the ones so anxious to whore out to the U.S.-- is aware of the rapid third-worldizing taking place in the U.S.? Why at this stage would you hitch your future to the U.S. when it will be a giant decaying Brazil in short time??

Faust

2004-11-27 05:52 | User Profile

Centinel,

Putin or the EU? I don't like those choices verymuch! But Putin is likely the lesser evil.

Faust

2004-11-27 20:32 | User Profile

More stuff

This preliminary report of the BHHRG's observers on the controversial second round of the Ukrainian presidential elections challenges the widely-disseminated media image of government-sponsored fraud at the expense of an untainted opposition on the basis of first-hand reporting.

Ukrainian Presidential Elections - 2nd Round Preliminary Report

24th November, 2004

The British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) sent observers to the second round of the presidential election in Ukraine on 21st November 2004. BHHRG monitored the election in the city and district of Kiev, Chernigov, and Transcarpathia. Counts were observed in central Kiev and Uzhgorod.

Contrary to the condemnations issued by the team of professional politicians and diplomats deployed by the OSCE mainly from NATO and EU states, the BHHRG observers did not see evidence of government-organized fraud nor of suppression of opposition media. Improbably high votes for Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovich, have been reported from south-eastern Ukraine but less attention has been given to the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine.

Although Western media widely claimed that in Ukraine the opposition was, in effect, excluded from the broadcast media, particularly in western Ukraine the opposite was the case. On the eve of the poll – in flagrant violation of the law banning propaganda for candidates – a series of so-called “social information” advertisements showing well-known pop stars like Eurovision winner Ruslana wearing the orange symbols of Mr Yushchenko’s candidacy and urging people to vote appeared on state television!

Although BHHRG did not encounter blatant violations in either the first or second rounds, the Group’s observers were alarmed by a palpable change in the atmosphere inside the polling stations in central Ukraine in particular. In Round 1, a relaxed and orderly mood prevailed throughout the day. In Round 2 the situation had become slightly tense and chaotic. In BHHRG’s observation the change in Round 2 was attributable primarily to an overabundance of local observers, who exercised undue influence over the process and in some instances were an intimidating factor. The vast majority of observers in the polling stations visited were representatives of Viktor Yushchenko.

Transparent ballot boxes meant that these observers could frequently see how people had voted. This OSCE-approved innovation made intimidation of voters for the more unpopular candidate in any district easier since few supporters of the minority would wish it to be seen how they had voted.

Ukraine’s election law allows only candidates and political parties, not non-governmental organizations, to deploy observers. However, observers can be deployed in the guise of journalists. For example, the Western-sponsored Committee of Voters of Ukraine (KVU) – clearly sympathetic to the opposition – deployed observers throughout Ukraine as “correspondents” for the organization’s newspaper, Tochka Zora. On 31st October, BHHRG did not encounter any representatives of this newspaper anywhere, but on 21st November such journalist-observers were highly visible in central Ukraine. In Chernigov 11/208, for example, all 6 journalist-observers represented opposition newspapers and one, for Tochka Zora, stood very close to the ballot boxes and closely inspected how votes were cast. Because ballot papers in Round 2 were much smaller than in Round 1 and were not placed in envelopes before insertion into the transparent ballot boxes, secrecy of the ballot was compromised. In this case, the immediate impression was that a young Tochka Zora correspondent exercised more control over the process than the election commission chairman himself.

In Chernigov (7/208), all 7 journalist-observers represented opposition newspapers, in some cases simply temporary campaign publications such as the pro-Yushchenko propaganda paper Tak – his election slogan “Yes.” In a scene exemplary of the mood of voting on 21st November, BHHRG watched a nervous looking old woman emerge from a voting booth, approach the three opposition observers sitting directly behind the ballot boxes, and ask: “Have I filled out the ballot correctly?” An observer inspected the ballot, saw it was filled in for Viktor Yushchenko, and replied: “Yes.” The woman’s unfolded ballot was plainly visible in the transparent ballot box.

Such groups of opposition journalist/observers were not in evidence in the Transcarpathian region visited by BHHRG’s observers. Exit pollsters in Mukachevo admitted to being Yushchenko supporters and were carrying out their poll in a simplistic manner – asking every twentieth voter for their choice without categorizing by age, class, etc. 40% of voters refused to say how they had voted, but 80% of the remainder said that they had backed Yushchenko. The exit polls were clearly not scientific – less so even than the ones predicting Kerry trouncing George W. Bush in Florida and Ohio!

In a polling station attached to Uzhgorod’s university a group of young, male Yushenko observers hung around the entrance to the polling room and next to the ballot box. OSCE guidelines condemn the presence of such un-authorised personnel. The commission chairman in this polling station stated that four members of the election commission had prevented observers for Mr. Yushenko from fulfilling their tasks leading to the intervention of lawyers. When this accusation was put to other members of the commission they appeared dumb-founded and said no such incident had taken place. The chairman appeared shocked that the BHHRG observers sought to confirm his detailed account of the misbehaviour of some of his colleagues by asking other witnesses, but no proper observation should accept allegations unquestioningly.

Conclusion:

Whatever may have been the case in south-eastern Ukraine, it was clear to this Group’s observers in central Ukraine and western Ukraine that the opposition exercised near complete control. The broadcast media showed bias towards Mr. Yushchenko in these areas, particularly in western Ukraine where Mr Yanukovich was invisible – not even being shown voting on polling day. It is naïve to think only the government had the facilities to exercise improper influence over the polls. From what BHHRG observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas. So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to “president” Yushchenko.

The open bias of Western governments and their nominated observers in the OSCE delegation, some of whom have appeared on opposition platforms, makes it unreasonable to rely on its report.

In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized. That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to be a loser.

[url]http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=22&ReportID=230[/url]

What should we make of events in Ukraine? 26th November 2004

To nationalists in Britain, watching huge crowds of fellow European demonstrators taking to the streets against a corrupt government that is clinging to power through electoral fraud is in some ways inspiring. Would that our people had given the same definite answer to the Blair regime after the rigged elections here in June.

But things aren't quite as simple as they seem. The demonstrators may well be sincere, and they probably have a point about dodgy elections, but that doesn't necessarily put them on the side of the 'good guys'. As Lee Barnes has pointed out, what is sold to us by 'our' Controlled Media' as a grass-roots movement for democracy in places like Ukraine is in fact a cynical, manipulative ploy, orchestrated and financed by the likes of George Soros, and the 'Russian' (in fact, Zionist) Oligarchs who are locked in a war with Russia's President Putin, who is struggling to relieve them of at least some of the obscene concentration of power and wealth which they looted from the long-suffering Russian people under their puppet Yeltsin.

To be sure, there are valuable lessons to be learnt by West European nationalist movements by watching how the crowds in Ukraine organise to overthrow the government - and in how that government fights back. After the banning of the Vlaams Blok and the outrageous rigging of the electoral process here back in June, it is now obvious to all but the most naive that the left-liberal elite will not allow the likes of us simply to be elected into power and then hand us over the reins of government.

Victory in elections will give nationalists the moral right to take over and rule democratically, but our Masters will only 'grant' us that right in the face of overwhelming People Power. This may well involve mass demonstrations, semi-syndicalist strike action by a combination of organised working class labour and middle class contractors such as road hauliers, milk producers and such like, and the refusal of groups of democrats organised inside the State's apparatus of repression and social control (ranging from the police to the media) to obey the orders of petty leftist tyrants.

With that future in mind, we should watch events in Ukraine not as partial, supportive fans of either side, but clinically, as a case-study in the art of revolution and counter-revolution. For my part, while on the sentimental stakes I'm with the demonstrators, on the hard political stakes for the future of all the true nations of Europe, I'm with Putin and his allies - for Russia against global capitalism.

[url]http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/chairman2.php?ngId=7[/url]

Faust

2004-11-28 05:47 | User Profile

US rejects Ukraine poll as protesters dig in

Opposition leader calls for strike and new vote

Nick Paton Walsh in Kiev Thursday November 25, 2004 The Guardian

The United States last night raised the stakes in Ukraine's election crisis when Colin Powell, the secretary of state, insisted that Washington would not accept the official result and threatened to ostracise the Russian-backed regime.

His intervention, which sets the Bush administration on a collision course with Moscow, came as the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, called for a nationwide strike and up to 100,000 of his supporters braved blizzards and freezing temperatures to once again mass in Kiev's Independence Square.

Outgoing President Leonid Kuchma warned that civil war could "become a reality", and asked the world community to stay out of Ukraine's affairs.

Hours earlier - dismissing pressure from European leaders - Ukraine's central election commission declared the Putin-backed prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, the winner of the election, which has been marred by widespread claims of fraud and ballot rigging.

Towards the end of a heady day which teetered between violence and carnival, Mr Powell challenged Ukraine's leaders "to decide whether they are on the side of democracy or not". "If the Ukrainian government does not act im mediately and responsibly, there will be consequences for our relationship, for Ukraine's hopes for a Euro-Atlantic integration and for individuals responsible for perpetrating fraud," he said.

Almost immediately, Mr Yanukovich announced that negotiations with the opposition would begin today.

"We will be looking for common language," he told the Russian Interfax news agency. "Ukraine is our common land, and we should have a chance to live together as well as possible."

The concession came after another tense stand-off in the capital, with supporters of both sides converging on the offices of the election commission, which announced that Mr Yanukovich had won Sunday's presidential run-off with a lead of nearly three points, 49.46% to 46.61. A clearly angered Mr Yushchenko dismissed the announcement. "We do not recognise the election as officially declared," he said. The proclamation of victory for Mr Yanukovich put Ukraine "on the brink of civil conflict".

Addressing his supporters, he called for a strike that would involve "stopping lessons at schools and universities, stopping work at enterprises, stopping transport _ and, thus, we'll force the authorities to think about what they are doing."

Yuliya Tymoshenko, Mr Yushchenko's key ally, said the opposition would "surround all government buildings, block railways, airports and highways".

"We have a strict intention to seize power in our hands at these sites," she said.

With the country paralysed for a fourth day, there was no sign that supporters of Mr Yushchenko were being cowed by the refusal of the authorities to give way.

After opposition MPs addressed the largest crowd that had gathered so far, loud music began playing and protesters danced.

Streams of them spilled out from the central square across the city, kicking up the snow and insisting they would remain until the bitter end.

The protest had become increasingly organised. A truck appeared broadcasting the opposition TV channel 5, a medical tent was set up and men began hacking at sheet ice that was slowing crowd movement.

On hearing the declaration from election officials, two columns of protesters marched out of Independence Square, one heading for the presidential administration and another for the commission.

Whipping up the crowds, Mr Yushchenko repeated the condemnations of election abuses made by the US, EU and Nato in the last week and mentioned the possibility of a third vote.

He said: "We are ready to have a repeat of the second round vote provided we have an honest Central Election Commission."

Though smaller in number, the prime minister's supporters were also on the streets yesterday, waving blue flags and promising their own determined show of support. All day rumours swirled of the arrival of columns of miners from Donetsk, the shock troops of Mr Yanukovich's campaign, but they failed to turn up.

One protester called Mr Yushchenko a western puppet, saying that "we are not against working with the US," but adding that Iraq "showed a tendency that we don't like"

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1359187,00.html[/url]

Faust

2004-11-28 05:54 | User Profile

Centinel,

How it upsets me to live in a time when America has gone so wrong!

[QUOTE]The "Community of Democracies" illustrates the point. According to the State Department, "The United States is a strong supporter of The Community of Democracies (CD), a unique forum that brings together those nations committed to promoting and strengthening democracy worldwide." It has a symbiotic relationship with a number of NGOs through which the U.S. Government promotes "democracy" in foreign countries—meaning political candidates favored by the U.S. government. These NGOs (see this list) include the Open Society Institute that in a domestic context are anything but supportive of the Bush administration. Some are creatures of the National Endowment for Democracy (e.g., [url]http://www.wmd.org[/url]) while others had begun as projects of the Open Society Institute, e.g., [url]http://www.demcoalition.org/html/home.html[/url]. It also should be noted that CD is itself handing out U.S. government money to these NGOs, and even had advertised a current solicitation. Bogus NGOs, such as the Committee of Ukrainian Voters, use Western funds to employ presentable, educated English speakers. As John Laughland noted in the Spectator,

"Because they speak English, the political activists in such organisations can easily nobble Anglophone Western reporters. Contrary allegations—such as those of fraud committed by Yushchenko-supporting local authorities in western Ukraine, carefully detailed by Russian election observers but available only in Russian—go unreported. So too does evidence of crude intimidation made by Yushchenko supporters against election officials."

All facts which contradict this morality tale were suppressed, says Laughland. Thus a story had been widely circulated that Yushchenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign, allegedly because the government wanted to kill him, but no English language outlet has carried the interview by the chief physician of the Vienna clinic which treated Yushchenko for his mystery illness: "The clinic released a report declaring there to be no evidence of poisoning, after which, said the chief physician, he was subjected to such intimidation by Yushchenko's entourage—who wanted him to change the report—that he was forced to seek police protection.

"You see the whole apparat," says our source, "a conclave of governments, friendly (and government funded) NGOs, and contract opportunities. Something for everybody—and all for ‘democracy.' Y'gotta love it!" [/QUOTE]

Faust

2004-11-29 01:49 | User Profile

More stuff:

[QUOTE]Yushchenko is married to Kateryna Yushchenko-Chumachenko (his second wife). She is a Ukrainian-American born in Chicago and a former official with the U.S. State Department. Opponents of Yushchenko have criticized her for remaining a U.S. citizen. During the recent election campaign, Kateryna was accused of exerting the influence of the U.S. government on her husband's decisions, as an employee of the U.S. government or even a CIA agent. Yushchenko has five children: three daughters and two sons.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Many commentators saw the elections as being influenced by outside powers, notably the United States, the European Union and Russia, with the US backing Yushchenko (sending former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and Senator John McCain to visit with Yushchenko),

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election%2C_2004[/url][/QUOTE]

Walter Yannis

2004-11-29 09:30 | User Profile

This whole thing really points up the deep cultural fracture that divides Ukraine east from west. I understand that Donetsk in the east is threatening a referendum on "autonomy" if Yukshenko (whose support is mostly in the west) doesn't back off.

The western parts were long under Austrian-Hungarian (and earlier Polish) influence for a long, long time. In contrast, the eastern parts were long under Russian (and earlier, Ottoman) influence. That's a gross simplification of a very complicated historical process of which I know but a little, but it is really interesting that this fight is taking on deeply regional overtones that divide along Europe's ancient east-west cultural border.

Lvov and Donetsk are different places, or so I'm told (never been to either, but I have been to Kiev several times, nice city).

Samuel Huntington may be proved right yet again.

Walter

Okiereddust

2004-11-29 15:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]This whole thing really points up the deep cultural fracture that divides Ukraine east from west. I understand that Donetsk in the east is threatening a referendum on "autonomy" if Yukshenko (whose support is mostly in the west) doesn't back off.

The western parts were long under Austrian-Hungarian (and earlier Polish) influence for a long, long time. In contrast, the eastern parts were long under Russian (and earlier, Ottoman) influence. That's a gross simplification of a very complicated historical process of which I know but a little, but it is really interesting that this fight is taking on deeply regional overtones that divide along Europe's ancient east-west cultural border. Walter[/QUOTE]The Ukraine became a the "borderland" between the territories controlled by the Golden Horde - Russia - and the west.

I'm not sure though about how these territories transferred into modern times. Ukraine of course was especially hard hit by the war, and that after the great famine instituted by Stalin's henchmen. I'm not sure exactly, but I strongly suspect that the eastern Ukraine's industrial heartland population is composed of Russian immigrants who were not originally residents of the area, to replace the lost population.

Not unsimilar then to the situation in the other former Soviet republics, like Latvia and Estonia. Its a complicated situation.

Walter Yannis

2004-11-29 16:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]The Ukraine became a the "borderland" between the territories controlled by the Golden Horde - Russia - and the west.

I'm not sure though about how these territories transferred into modern times. Ukraine of course was especially hard hit by the war, and that after the great famine instituted by Stalin's henchmen. I'm not sure exactly, but I strongly suspect that the eastern Ukraine's industrial heartland population is composed of Russian immigrants who were not originally residents of the area, to replace the lost population.

Not unsimilar then to the situation in the other former Soviet republics, like Latvia and Estonia. Its a complicated situation.[/QUOTE]

The eastern part of the country is largely Russian-speaking. I think you're right that it had to do with industrialization, at least in part. Donetsk has long been a large coal mining area - they have huge coal deposits - and so it was a focus of industrial development, which in turn brought in lots of people from all over.

Faust

2004-12-01 04:41 | User Profile

**No-confidence motion on PM Viktor Yanukovych fails!

Only 196 of the 410 MPs present backed the move.**

Poll wrangling paralyses Ukraine Ukraine's parliament has adjourned a session on the disputed presidential poll, failing to pass a no-confidence motion in PM Viktor Yanukovych.

Only 196 of the 410 MPs present backed the move.

The speaker of parliament said the session was getting too confrontational and would be resumed on Wednesday.

There were dramatic scenes as several protesters backing opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko - who says the poll was rigged - entered the parliament.

They broke through police cordons and into the parliament's lobby, shortly after lawmakers provisionally adopted a measure to annul Saturday's non-binding decision to declare the 21 November presidential run-off invalid. The protesters were later pushed back.

Trying to calm the situation, parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn pledged that MPs would not repeal its previous decision.

Mr Yushchenko also urged protesters not to try to seize the parliament, described by some opposition leaders as the last "bastion of democracy".

The opposition's no-confidence motion called for a dismissal of the government to prevent anti-constitutional actions and separatism threatening the country's integrity.

A vote of no-confidence in the government would have no legal effect, but correspondents say it would be a big symbolic victory for Mr Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court continues to hear opposition allegations of vote-rigging.

PM's offer rejected

The BBC's James Coomarasamy in the capital, Kiev, says the pressure seems to be mounting on Mr Yanukovych, widely seen as an ally of Russia.

POLITICAL CRISIS TIMELINE 21 Nov: Viktor Yanukovych declared winner of run-off poll Independent observers declare the elections flawed, and thousands take to the streets 25 Nov: Supreme Court suspends publication of result until it considers the opposition's complaints 26 Nov: Mr Yanukovych and Mr Yushchenko hold talks and agree to seek peaceful solution 27 Nov: MPs declare election invalid, pass vote of no-confidence in the election commission 28 Nov: Eastern regions threaten to secede if Mr Yushchenko is declared president 29 Nov: Supreme Court meets to start considering complaints of poll abuses and arguments of pro-government camp

On Tuesday, Mr Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal, rejected an offer by Mr Yanukovych to appoint him prime minister or for both men to withdraw from new elections.

The head of his electoral campaign has resigned and the outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, who backed Mr Yanukovych, has joined calls for fresh elections.

Mr Yanukovych said earlier he would agree to a partial re-run of the poll if there was evidence of mass violations.

Heated negotiations

The dispute has led to more than a week of mass protests by supporters of both Mr Yushchenko and Mr Yanukovych.

Mr Yushchenko accused his rival's negotiators of "sabotaging" talks aimed at resolving the crisis, and threatened to withdraw from them.

Mr Yanukovych's backers in eastern and southern regions of the country have threatened to demand autonomy if Mr Yushchenko becomes the new president of Ukraine.

But parliament in the Donetsk coal-mining region has now postponed an emergency session to discuss a referendum on autonomy.

In Moscow, an ally of President Vladimir Putin, parliamentary speaker Boris Gryzlov, warned that the situation in Ukraine "is heading towards a split or towards bloodshed".

The US and the European Union - who have refused to recognise the official results - have expressed concern about the possibility of Ukraine breaking up.

Mr Kuchma warned on Monday that the country's financial system faced collapse after reports from Ukraine's central bank that there had been a rush to withdraw bank deposits.

Last week, the Supreme Court suspended the official results, which saw Mr Yanukovych declared the winner with 49.46% of the vote to Mr Yushchenko's 46.61%.

Mr Yushchenko's team has submitted some 11,000 of allegations of ballot-rigging to regional courts and one complaint to the Supreme Court.

HAVE YOUR SAY I see the only possible way out of this is by holding the elections again Warren, York, UK

The government has also lodged 7,000 complaints of irregularities to regional courts.

Mr Yushchenko has declared himself the rightful winner, alleging massive fraud. His concerns have been echoed by international observers.

But the Supreme Court could take up to a week to reach a decision.

The court - seen as relatively independent - cannot invalidate the whole election, but it can uphold a complaint and order a partial or full recount. Story from BBC NEWS: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4053753.stm[/url]

Published: 2004/11/30 16:17:46 GMT

© BBC MMIV

Centinel

2004-12-01 05:23 | User Profile

anyone making wagers on Ukraine undergoing a mini-balkanization along ethnic/religious lines in the near future? .....or an independent west country while the east is annexed by Russia?

Sertorius

2004-12-01 07:54 | User Profile

Centinel,

You may be right. Solzhenitsyn wrote years ago that in the event of a breakup of the Soviet Empire that the Ukraine would probably want to suceed while a vote to stay with Russia would probably be needed in the eastern part, as these areas feel closer to Russia than the Ukraine.

Too bad the Bush gang won't be able to resist the urge to mess in an area they have no business in.

Okiereddust

2004-12-01 16:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Sertorius]Centinel,

You may be right. Solzhenitsyn wrote years ago that in the event of a breakup of the Soviet Empire that the Ukraine would probably want to suceed while a vote to stay with Russia would probably be needed in the eastern part, as these areas feel closer to Russia than the Ukraine.

Not that there is any huge injustice here. Nothing indivisible realy about the national boundaries arbitrarily drawn up by Stalin, and then just as arbitarily trampled upon, (by resettlement, etc.)

Too bad the Bush gang won't be able to resist the urge to mess in an area they have no business in.[/QUOTE]There is something to be said I think for Yuschenko. But what if he wins in the end, and the east in response moves toward independence/anchluss with Russia? Clearly I think this is the way things may be headed, but I suspect the Bush administration will scream "subversion" , "ukraine integrity" etc etc. if this starts to happen.

Faust

2004-12-02 13:48 | User Profile

More stuff:

Beware of Western Nation's Threatening "Democracy" By DONNA J. VOLATILE [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15857[/url]

Faust

2004-12-03 04:25 | User Profile

Britney Spears Calls for Violent Revolution in Ukraine

A massive pro-democracy concert sponsored by Pepsi Co. to take place in the troubled nation of Ukraine next month may be cancelled owing to protests by the government over statements by the concert's headliner, Britney Spears.

In an appearance on NBC's Tonight Show, Spears was asked by host Jay Leno what she hoped the concert would accomplish. She said she hoped the youth of Ukraine would realize that "their democracy is being stolen" and would "get together and do something about it."

Mr. Leno asked her if she meant that they should demand a recount of the votes or a new election, and Ms. Spears replied that "they should do whatever it takes. What good is a new election if it's only going to be as rigged as the first one? What good is a recount if the same people are doing the counting? Freedom is a precious thing," she said, "and once you lose it, it's gone."

Doffing her Pepsi ballcap, she said that US officials had been unsuccessful in having the fraudulent results of the election overturned and that now it was "up to the kids" to "take back their democracy." She said that, while it "might be scary" to "go up against the police and the government," losing their freedom to choose their leaders was "even scarier."

NBC was immediately besieged with calls from the Ukraine and Russian governments protesting Ms. Spears apparent instigation of widespread and bloody violence. While spokeswomen from NBC and Pepsi Co. insisted that the First Amendment prevented them from censoring the political opinions of late night talk show guests, for the time being, plans for the upcoming Kiev concert are "on hold."

[url]http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=804[/url]

Faust

2004-12-08 04:33 | User Profile

Ukraine in Turmoil as Agreement Crumbles [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1260074.htm[/url]

Ponce

2004-12-08 05:01 | User Profile

Who are we to tell others how to have an "honest" election when we can't have one?

The main problem of a country traying to fix their own problems are those countrys that want to "heip", is like when you are having a problem with your boy and the guy next door comes over to "help".