"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"
An International Newsletter
In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis, and Commentary
"The Art of Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World"
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" Year 04, Number 240
The Action Ukraine Coalition (AUC), Washington, D.C.
Ukrainian Federation of America (UFA), Huntingdon Valley, PA
morganw@patriot.net, ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net (ARTUIS)
Washington, D.C., Kyiv, Ukraine, WEDNESDAY, December 1, 2004
NOTE: The Action Ukraine Report has increased its production
schedule because of the extraordinary events happening in Ukraine.
We are now publishing two Report's each day, whenever possible,
to try and keep up with the huge flow of very important articles.
-----INDEX OF ARTICLES-----
"Major International News Headlines and Articles"
1. RADA IMPEACHES CREDIBILITY OF CABINET
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Dec 1, 2004 (13:14)
2. UKRAINE MP'S VOTE DOWN GOVERNMENT
But no-confidence motion has to be signed by the President
BBC NEWS, Kiev, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004
3. UKRAINE PARLIAMENT VOTES OUT GOVERNMENT
By Aleksandar Vasovic, Associated Press Writer
AP, Kiev, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004
4. POLL BY RAZUMKOV CENTER: 48% READY TO SUPPORT
YUSHCHENKO, 36% WILL BACK YANUKOVYCH ON FRESH
RUNOFF VOTE ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Ukrainian News, Kiev, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004 (14:44)
5. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KUCHMA REJECTS RUNOFF RERUN
Source: Inter TV, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1015 gmt 1 Dec 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wed, December 1, 2004 (10:15)
6. YUSHCHENKO CALLS ON UKRAINIANS TO STAND UP FOR
NATIONAL INTERESTS, WE ARE A UNITED NATION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004 (13:49)
7. MP OLEG RYBACHUK DEMANDS THAT PGO AND SBU
INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004 (14:15)
8. SPEAKER LYTVYN NOT INTENDING TO ENTER CONTEST IF
FRESH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ARE ORGANIZED
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004 (11:35)
9. "IMPERIAL RUSSIA, VASSAL UKRAINE"
COMMENTARY: by Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A10
10. "DANGEROUS INDIFFERENCE IN RUSSIA"
OP-ED: By Masha Lipman, The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A25
11. "THE LARGER STRUGGLE OVER UKRAINE"
EDITORIAL: The Washington Times
Washington, D.C., Wed, December 01, 2004
12. "THE FREEDOM HATERS"
By Anne Applebaum, Columnist, The Washington Post
Washington, D.C. Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A25
13.THE RADICALS WITH VESTED INTEREST IN ORANGE VICTORY:
KEY SUPPORTERS DRIVING YUSHCHENKO'S BANDWAGON
Nick Paton Walsh in Kiev, The Guardian, London, UK Tue, Nov 30, 2004
14. "MORE THAN PRESIDENCY AT STAKE IN UKRAINE"
By John O'Sullivan, Columnist, Chicago Sun Times
Chicago, Illinois, Tuesday, November 30, 2004
15. "DESTABILIZING FORCES"
International spotlight must expose Moscow's machinations
COMMENTARY: by Janusz Bugajski
The Washington Times, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 240: ARTICLE NUMBER ONE
========================================================
1. RADA IMPEACHES CREDIBILITY OF CABINET
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Dec 1, 2004 (13:14)
KYIV - The Verkhovna Rada has expressed no confidence in the
Cabinet of Ministers at the second-round voting. Corresponding
points of the resolution On Stabilization of the Political and
Social and Economic Situation in Ukraine and Prevention of
Anti-Constitutional Acts and Separatist Manifestations Threatening
the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine were backed up
by 229 MPs, with 226 votes are needed for adoption.
"...to declare no confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, with
sequent of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine resignation," the statement
reads.
Particularly, the Rada cancelled its decision on approval of the program
of activity of the Cabinet of Ministers "Consistency. Effectiveness.
Responsibility."
The Verkhovna Rada also suggested Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma
with the participation of Verkhovna Rada Chairman Volodymyr Lytvyn to
form personal composition of the Cabinet of Ministers before the president-
elect enters his post.
"...To form personal composition of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine -
the government of people's trust, taking into consideration proposals of MP
factions and groups at the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine," the resolution reads.
At the first voting on no confidence in the government a total of 222 MPs
voted for it. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER TWO
========================================================
2. UKRAINE MP'S VOTE DOWN GOVERNMENT
But no-confidence motion has to be signed by the President
BBC NEWS, Kiev, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004
KIEV - Ukraine's parliament has passed a no-confidence motion in Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych as a crisis over the disputed presidential poll
continues.
MPs narrowly backed an opposition bid to dismiss Mr Yanukovych and his
government on grounds of mismanagement. Electoral authorities say Mr
Yanukovych beat the opposition's Viktor Yushchenko despite claims of
vote-rigging.
Ukraine's outgoing President Leonid Kuchma has formally proposed holding a
new poll to end the stand-off. The US and the European Union said the 21
November election run-off fell short of democratic norms, and the Supreme
Court has delayed publication of the results while it considers the
vote-rigging allegations. The BBC's Stephen Mulvey in Kiev says reports
are circulating that a ruling by the court could come late on Wednesday.
INTERIM GOVERNMENT
In parliament, 229 MPs - three more than required - voted in favour of
sacking Mr Yanukovych as prime minister and creating an interim government.
It was the second attempt to pass the no-confidence motion after Tuesday's
session ended without agreement.
Our correspondent says the government will not automatically be dismissed
now the resolution has been passed, as this requires the signature of the
president.
Forcing through the dissolution without presidential approval would require
a larger majority: two-thirds of MPs, or 301 votes. However, the decision
certainly has symbolic significance and keeps up the pressure on Mr
Yanukovych, our correspondent says.
Nestor Shufrych, a member of Mr Yanukovych's party, described the vote
as "howls and snivellings" on the part of parliament. "The president is the
guardian of the constitution and he won't pay attention to this. He won't
take this seriously," Mr Shufrych told the BBC. He said it was an illegal
decision and that they would contest it in the Constitutional Court.
In a separate vote, the local parliament in Mr Yanukovych's home region of
Donetsk decided to hold a referendum on 9 January to seek autonomy from
central government.
MEDIATION EFFORTS
At the same time, international mediators are converging on Ukraine in a
fresh attempt to break the deadlock brought about by the disputed elections.
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and his Lithuanian counterpart
Valdas Adamkus arrived in Kiev on Wednesday morning.
POLITICAL CRISIS TIMELINE
21 Nov: Viktor Yanukovych declared winner of run-off poll
Independent observers declare the elections flawed, thousands take to the
streets
25 Nov: Supreme Court suspends publication of result while it considers the
opposition's complaints
26 Nov: Yanukovych and Yushchenko hold talks and agree to seek peaceful
solution
27 Nov: MPs declare poll invalid, pass vote of no-confidence in election
commission
28 Nov: Threat by eastern regions to secede if Yushchenko declared president
29 Nov: Supreme Court starts considering complaints of poll abuses and
arguments of pro-government camp
30 Nov: Parliament rejects motion of no-confidence in government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4057213.stm
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER THREE
========================================================
3. UKRAINE PARLIAMENT VOTES OUT GOVERNMENT
By Aleksandar Vasovic, Associated Press Writer
AP, Kiev, Ukraine, Wed, December 1, 2004
KIEV, Ukraine - Ukraine's parliament brought down the government
Wednesday, approving a no-confidence motion as international
mediators gathered in the capital to try to bring the spiraling political
crisis to a peaceful resolution.
The dramatic vote came only days after the Election Commission
certified Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich as winner of Ukraine's
disputed presidential run-off, though opposition leader Victor
Yushchenko has said the vote was fraudulant - an allegation backed
by Western governments.
The vote with 229 in favor came minutes after the 450-member chamber
initially turned down the motion by a vote of 222-1, and after
outgoing President Leonid Kuchma announced he supported holding
an entire new presidential election, not just a revote of the disputed
second round.
Ukraine had a first round of voting in which no one candidate received
more than half the votes, setting up a runoff between the top two
candidates. The results from the Nov. 21 runoff provoked a national
standoff when the opposition refused to accept them, citing vote fraud
- a charge backed by many international monitors.
"Where in the world do they have a third round of elections? A revote
- it's a farce," Kuchma said at a government meeting. "I never
supported it because it is unconstitutional."
The opposition has sought a revote, claiming victory was stolen from
its candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.
Kuchma's proposal seemed to be an attempt to buy the government
time in the face of mass protests that have paralyzed the capital for 10
days and blocked government business. It also opened up the
possibility of bringing new candidates into the race - which the
government has appeared to favor and the opposition fiercely opposes.
But following parliament's no-confidence vote, Kuchma must dismiss his
government, said Kiev-based analyst Markian Bilynskyj. Pro-communist
parliamentary groups used a similar move in 2001 to oust Yushchenko
from the prime minister's post, Bilynskyj said.
As Ukraine's politicians staked out their positions, international
mediators renewed efforts to defuse the crisis and the Supreme Court
considered whether the election results were valid.
The last internationally brokered negotiations broke down over
opposition accusations that the government was trying to consolidate
its flagging authority by dragging out the talks. Yushchenko is
pushing to be declared the outright winner - or for a fast revote to
capitalize on the momentum generated by the protests.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana arrived in Kiev
Tuesday and was to be followed Wednesday by Polish President
Aleksander Kwasniewski and the secretary general of the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Jan Kubis. The speaker of the
Russian parliament, Boris Gryzlov, and Lithuanian President Valdas
Adamkus were also expected to participate.
Mediators helped arrange talks between Yanukovych and Yushchenko
last Friday. The two sides agreed to set up a working group to seek a
compromise, but the opposition pulled out of those talks on Tuesday.
The issue of a revote or new election was likely to be high on the
agenda of Wednesday's meetings with international mediators.
Yanukovych suggested Tuesday he could agree to a proposal for a new
election - but that both he and Yushchenko should bow out if one is held.
"If this election brings a split in the country ... I'm ready to drop
my bid along with him," Yanukovych said.
Yushchenko ignored the proposal. He also rebuffed the offer of the
prime minister's post under a Yanukovych presidency, saying it fell
far short of a solution.
"The election was rigged," he said. "People are asking whether this
country has a political elite capable of upholding a fair vote.
Yushchenko has led the opposition for years and was long seen as its
candidate in a country where millions are yearning for change after
Kuchma's 10-year rule. Kuchma anointed Yanukovych as his favored
successor last spring, hoping his prominence as prime minister would
attract votes.
Solana, who met with Kuchma Tuesday, voiced hope the two sides
could be brought back to the table. "I'm sure that with the goodwill
of everybody we will see the progress in the coming days," Solana
told reporters.
Both campaigns are pinning their hopes on the Supreme Court, which
convened for a third day to consider Yushchenko's appeal for the
official results to be annulled. The opposition has presented its
allegations of fraud and demanded Yushchenko be named the winner
based on his narrow edge in the election's first round on Oct. 31. It
remains unclear when a ruling will come.
The political crisis stoked fears of Ukraine's breakup. Yushchenko
draws his support from the Ukrainian-speaking west and the capital,
while Yanukovych's base is the Russian-speaking, industrialized east.
The West has refused to recognize the results, while Russia - which
still has considerable influence over Ukraine - congratulated
Yanukovych and complained of Western meddling. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER FOUR
========================================================
4. POLL BY RAZUMKOV CENTER: 48% READY TO SUPPORT
YUSHCHENKO, 36% WILL BACK YANUKOVYCH ON FRESH
RUNOFF VOTE ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kiev, Ukraine, December 1, 2004 (14:44)
KYIV - According to the public opinion poll held by the Ukrainian Center
for Economic and Political Studies named after Oleksandr Razumkov,
47.8% of the poll participants are ready to support the candidacy of Our
Ukraine coalition leader Viktor Yuschenko, and 36% will back Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych on fresh runoff vote on presidential election.
Ukrainian News learned this from the poll data.
Poll participants answered the question, who they were prepared to vote
for in the new second round of presidential election should it be held.
4.5% of the poll participants are prepared to vote against all.
4.8% will not come to elections. 6.9% failed to give answer.
Poll participants also answered the question, which candidate has more
chances to be elected president. 45% of the poll participants said that
Yuschenko had more chances, and 30% thought Yanukovych did.
13% of the poll participants believe that Yuschenko and Yanukovych
have equal chances. 12.1% found it difficult to find answer.
On November 25-29, the center polled 2,013 people older than 18 in
all regions of Ukraine. According to the exit poll inquiries made by the
Consortium comprising the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, the
Razumkov Ukrainian Center for Economic and Political Research and
the Democratic Initiatives fund, 53% of the voters cast their ballots in
favor of Yuschenko and 44% voted for Yanukovych. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE
========================================================
5. UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT KUCHMA REJECTS RUNOFF RERUN
Source: Inter TV, Kiev, in Ukrainian 1015 gmt 1 Dec 04
BBC Monitoring Service, UK, in English, Wed, Dec 1, 2004 (10:15)
KIEV - Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma has said that neither he
nor Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych will agree to hold a rerun of
the presidential runoff. Kuchma urged the opposition to resume
negotiations instead of making radical calls in the streets. He added
that further confrontation would lead to a territorial split in Ukraine.
Kuchma said there is still hope that a round table with international
mediators will defuse the crisis.
The following is an excerpt from a live report by Ukrainian Inter
TV on 1 December and intercepted in progress:
[Kuchma] I would like to inform everyone that numerous political
consultations have been held lately. I will not list the people I have
held talks with - including the opposition. I can stress that the meetings
were absolutely tolerant, but as soon as we leave the table and get
into a different situation, then totally different calls are made.
So, this problem can be solved on one condition only - if there is
goodwill on the part of all sides involved, instead of accusations
and insults being levelled at the government, the prime minister, and
the members of parliament who favour the possibility of finding a
compromise rather than revolutionary expedience or a constitutional
coup, towards which [this country] is being pushed. Insults are being
levelled at the president, and so on and so forth.
I would like to stress again that it is totally unadvisable to use the
language of ultimatums in talking to me. I will not accept this. I just
wish to remind everyone - [changes tack] Calls were made,
especially during the election campaign, to get the Ukrainian people
off their knees. I would like to say that today attempts are being made
to bring to its knees that part of Ukraine that voted for Yanukovych.
This was mainly the east and the south. I think that if that is to continue,
this will be a gross historic mistake. I stress - a historic mistake.
Ukraine needs a legitimate president. A simple political decision, including
by parliament, will not solve the problem. If we stress that we are building
a democratic and law-governed state, let's at least wait for a ruling by the
Supreme Court of Ukraine.
Then, Prime Minister Yanukovych has lately made lots of proposals to sit
down at the table and discuss, including a re-count of votes in Donetsk
and Luhansk regions, and a rerun of the vote in those regions.
I made the appeal - let's hold another election. But this is not being
accepted. We are being told - let's hold a rerun of the vote. I would like
to ask everyone: Has a third round of elections been held anywhere in the
world? But a rerun would be a farce. I cannot see it in any other way. I
will never support this option because it is anticonstitutional.
To hold a plebiscite - go ahead. In such a rerun - I understand it clearly
and I know the stance of Viktor Yanukovych - [changes tack] He is running
a 38.7 [degrees] fever today. He could not meet the 200-odd members of
parliament today. They wanted to see him this morning, but the crowd
prevented the meeting. He has no intention of taking part in a rerun of the
vote amid such a campaign.
So, if that side wants to take another step - I mean the inauguration [of
opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko - a symbolic act by the opposition in
parliament] has already been held, now only a plebiscite needs to be held -
go ahead, we can't forbid this. The question is, with what part of Ukraine?
That is why I am calling on the sides again to sit down and to think of the
consequences. Those who mainly speak on the squares will not suffer from
this in any way. It is simple people who will suffer. And it is clear now
that they will surely suffer.
Yesterday I met Mr [EU High Representative Javier] Solana. Today a round
table is to be held with all the participants involved, including [Polish]
President [Aleksander] Kwasniewski, Lithuanian President [Valdas] Adamkus,
OSCE Secretary-General [Jan] Kubis and Russian State Duma speaker
[Boris] Gryzlov. Also participating in this process are the president,
Supreme Council [parliament] chairman [Volodymyr Lytvyn] and
[presidential candidates] Yanukovych and [Viktor] Yushchenko. There
is still hope. [No further processing is planned.] -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER SIX
Please send us names for the free distribution list
========================================================
6. YUSHCHENKO CALLS ON UKRAINIANS TO STAND UP FOR
NATIONAL INTERESTS, WE ARE A UNITED NATION
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Dec 1, 2004 (13:49)
KYIV - Our Ukraine Coalition leader Viktor Yuschenko calls on
Ukrainians to stand up for national interests. His press service informed
Ukrainian News of the call, citing Yuschenko's address to the Ukrainian
people on the 13th anniversary of the All-Ukrainian Referendum on
Ukraine's independence.
Yuschenko stressed that Ukrainians are no longer the population or
electorate. "We are a united nation with common interest and ability to
protect them," the address reads.
The political leader emphasized that Ukrainians created their state on
December 1, 1991 and now they express their will to make it free.
"The events that are taking place on thousands of squares all around the
country suggest that the entire nation is ready to protest the truth and
justice," Yuschenko said in his address. When voting for the state system,
he added, Ukrainians dreamt not only about its external attributes of
power, but also about protectability, respect and security. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER SEVEN
Your comments about the Report are always welcome
========================================================
7. MP OLEG RYBACHUK DEMANDS THAT PGO AND SBU
INVESTIGATE ELECTION FRAUD
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Dec 1, 2004 (14:15)
KYIV - Parliamentary deputy from the Our Ukraine Coalition faction
Oleh Rybachuk has sent a request to Prosecutor General Hennadii
Vasyliev and Security Service Head Ihor Smeshko, demanding investigation
of the election fraud. Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn read out his
request at a parliament session on Wednesday.
Rybachuk accused the Presidential Administration, Central Election
Commission chairman Serhii Kivalov, a handful of lawmakers, heads
of several regional administrations, president's assistant Serhii Liovochkin
and deputy head of the Donetsk chapter of the Party of Regions Serhii
Kliuev of orchestrating the electoral violations.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, on November 26 Rybachuk
accused the election headquarters of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych,
the leadership of the CEC and the Presidential Administration of colluding
to falsify the presidential elections.
He said he possesses the proofs of the collusion like recordings of
telephone conversations confirmed by documents and witnesses.
He said that these recordings prove vote stealing in the first-round ballot
and the fact that faked ballot papers and absentee ballots were imported
from Russia and that they demonstrate how the CEC's transit server was
hacked.
According to Rybachuk, the recordings carry the voices of Regions
of Ukraine faction member Oleh Tsariov, Yanukovych's adviser
Eduard Prutnik, presidential aide Serhii Liovochkin, and others.
Rybachuk played a fragment of the audio recording, which he said
demonstrated that the Yanukovych campaign headquarters and the
heads of the Presidential Administration used the CEC's transit server
to rig the election.
In particularly, he said that the recordings demonstrated how nervous the
Yanukovych team was when it turned out to that the electronic vote count
software had changed and that the old access codes did not work. -30-
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER EIGHT
Your comments about the Report are always welcome
========================================================
8. SPEAKER LYTVYN NOT INTENDING TO ENTER CONTEST IF
FRESH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ARE ORGANIZED
Ukrainian News Agency, Kyiv, Ukraine, Wed, Dec 1, 2004 (11:35)
KYIV - Parliament Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn does not intend to
contest if fresh presidential elections are organized. Lytvyn announced
this to journalists in the parliament on Tuesday.
Lytvyn said that the rumors about his possible participation were just
rumors aimed at complicating his relations with the presidential
candidates. "Such a rumor is being spread to cause a quarrel between
me and the candidates," Lytvyn said.
He added that he believed that his main task is to ensure stable operation
of the parliament. "I want to be a good speaker of the parliament," he said.
=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER NINE
=========================================================
9. "IMPERIAL RUSSIA, VASSAL UKRAINE"
COMMENTARY: by Zbigniew Brzezinski
The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY
Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A10
While it is premature to predict the outcome of the ongoing Ukrainian
crisis, it is not too early to assess the stakes involved, to identify its
initial losers and winners, and to reflect on its broader policy
implications for the U.S. and the European Union.
The stakes are enormous and they go far beyond the issue of democracy in
Ukraine itself. Although Ukraine has been plagued by corruption and abuse
of power, which have eroded its initially impressive democracy, the country
still did hold -- unlike Russia -- two genuinely free presidential
elections. And again, unlike Russia's conduct in Chechnya, it dealt with
Crimean separatism in a civilized and restrained fashion. A truly democratic
Ukraine would give an enormous boost to the prospects for democracy in the
rest of the former Soviet Union.
That is why the KGB-dominated elite that is today ensconced in the Kremlin
is so hostile to a genuine democracy in Ukraine . A democratic Ukraine would
not be anti-Russian; but it would inevitably generate strong pressures for a
democratic revival in Russia. With real democracy in Ukraine , more and more
Russians would view the Putin regime as an anachronism. It is symbolic that
some of Russia's more daring democratic leaders have appeared at rallies in
Kiev on behalf of Viktor Yushchenko, whose electoral victory the Ukrainian
oligarchs as well as Vladimir Putin have been attempting to erase.
By the same token, however, the defeat of democracy in Ukraine or a
successful Russian-backed breakup of the country would further ignite the
ambitions of those in Moscow who still dream of a reconstituted empire. With
Ukraine transformed into a satellite like Belarus, the Kremlin would again
be an imperial capital. That, indeed, would be a tragic setback for those in
Russia who have recognized -- as Boris Yeltsin did more than a decade ago
in a speech delivered in Kiev -- that to be a hated imperial power is not a
blessing but a historic curse.
While the final outcome of the political contest in Ukraine is still
uncertain, it is already evident that Viktor Yanukovych, the preferred
candidate of the oligarchs and personally endorsed by Mr. Putin, is the
loser. His electoral "victory" has been totally discredited, while his
support for the separatist threat in eastern Ukraine has disqualified him as
a Ukrainian prime minister. His remaining hope is to become in effect the
Ukrainian equivalent of Alexander Lukashenko, the Kremlin-sponsored
satrap in neighboring Belarus, a prospect that even many supporters of
Mr. Yanukovych would find quite unappealing.
The second loser is President Putin of Russia. He has not only identified
himself personally with a brazen effort to subvert the democratic process in
Ukraine ; he has also made himself the object of ridicule by dashing off two
premature congratulatory messages to Mr. Yanukovych, even while
professing support for a fair compromise to the contested elections.
As yet, there are no final "winners." However, though not yet a winner,
Viktor Yushchenko is obviously the man of the hour and the person in
whom a majority of Ukrainians are investing their political hopes. In some
respects, outgoing President Leonid Kuchma is also a partial winner because
at the moment he is viewed as the necessary source of political continuity
and the possible sponsor of a contrived compromise. That gives him a new
lease on life. It also confronts him with an opportunity to redeem his image
and to gain both political and financial security for his family if he steps
down in a manner that provides for a peaceful transfer of power to Mr.
Yushchenko. The necessary first step is for Mr. Kuchma to dismiss the
discredited Mr. Yanukovych as prime minister and appoint a genuinely
neutral personality to supervise the state administration during the
electoral process.
In the unfolding circumstances, the position of the West should be
principled and unambiguous regarding the long-term consequences of
alternative outcomes. While no serious person in the West wishes relations
with Russia to deteriorate, the Kremlin should not be blind to its own
interest in good relations with the West. The Kremlin cannot masquerade
as a democracy while complicit in squashing democracy.
Moreover, both the U.S. and the EU should make it clear that support for
separatism in Ukraine as a means for defeating democracy is an unacceptable
form of international blackmail. Such separatism also plays with fire.
Russia cannot be demanding support for its suppression of separatism in
Chechnya while sponsoring breakaways in Ukraine , in addition to
persistently doing so in Georgia. An outbreak of violence in the sensitive
regions of eastern Ukraine could prove contagious in the non-Russian
regions of Russia itself.
It is also necessary to press Mr. Kuchma to quit stalling in the hope of
fatiguing the opposition and to eschew new electoral tricks. There has
already been some talk in his camp that in any new elections only new
candidates would be permitted to run, or that a new candidate would be put
up against Mr. Yushchenko. In either case, Mr. Yushchenko -- already having
been deprived of victory by massive fraud -- would be disadvantaged. Both
the U.S. and the EU should be firm on this issue as well and not let
themselves be bamboozled. The choice is clear: Either Mr. Yushchenko is
declared the real winner in the recent elections, or the elections are
re-run.
As soon as new elections are scheduled, the U.S. and the EU should again
engage themselves, even more and earlier than before, in closely monitoring
the electoral process. A renewed effort and even greater vigilance are
needed to make certain that the Ukrainians this time round have the
opportunity to make their own choice. Free choice was denied to them in
the recent elections, and it must be respected in any rescheduled vote. It
is particularly important that Ukrainian TV no longer be the mouthpiece
of the ruling oligarchs. A formal U.N. supervisory presence might also be
contrived, especially if the Ukrainian government itself was to invite U.N.
observers.
Given the stakes involved, the leaders of the Western democracies should
also articulate a more defined vision of the West's longer-range
relationship with a democratic Ukraine and -- one hopes soon -- a democratic
Russia. Any genuinely democratic neighbor of the EU should tangibly benefit
from such proximity even if itself not yet ready for consideration for
membership. A larger and more flexible framework of transcontinental
cooperation that reaches beyond a "Europe to the Urals" (once so
prophetically evoked by de Gaulle) is urgently needed to give the Ukrainian
as well as Russian peoples a socially attractive point of historical
destination. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, is a
professor at Johns Hopkins and a trustee at the Center for Strategic &
International Studies [CSIS in Washington, D.C.]
=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No.240: ARTICLE NUMBER TEN
Suggested articles for publication in the Report are always welcome
=========================================================
10. "DANGEROUS INDIFFERENCE IN RUSSIA"
OP-ED: By Masha Lipman, The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A25
MOSCOW -- "I feel jealous and proud because I am standing amongst these
peaceful and free people," wrote a journalist covering Ukraine's surging
democracy movement. "I feel the ecstasy of revolution mixed with burning
jealousy, for it will be a long time before I see anything like this in
Moscow."
The writer, Valery Panyushkin, is one of Russia's most liberal journalists,
and the jealousy he feels is widespread among his fellow supporters of
democracy. It's been such a long time since we in Russia had enthusiastic,
peaceful, happy crowds united by a desire for political change. It makes us
especially envious to see so many young people passionate about their
country's future, confident that they can and will shape it the way they
believe is right.
Yet these sentiments exist among only a tiny fraction of Panyushkin's
compatriots, and the number of those willing to express them in public is
even smaller. By the end of the first week of the standoff in Ukraine, just
small rally had been organized in Moscow in support of Ukrainian democracy.
In a poll conducted in Russia around the time of the runoff election, 34
percent said that if they could vote, it would be for Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych, the government's man, while only 7 percent supported the
opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. Others had no preferences or no
opinion. People in Russia don't seem to be emotionally involved in the
Ukrainian situation. About one-third said they were following the events,
while more than 70 percent were uninterested or not especially focused.
This sort of indifference to dramatic events has become commonplace among
the Russian people in recent years. The collapse of the Soviet superpower
seems to have left them with a general feeling of apathy interrupted by
occasional outbursts of frustration when they feel that their country is
being ignored, shunned or pressured by the stronger West. Such was the
reaction to the bombing of Yugoslavia, and also to what was regarded as
unfair treatment of Russian athletes at the Winter Olympics in 2002, and to
the launching of the war in Iraq.
In the absence of outright clashes with the West, however, the frustration
and hostility subside. For while there is a desire among Russians that their
country once again become a great power -- one that other nations fear --
and while the Russian public responds eagerly to rhetoric along those lines,
there is also an unwillingness to invest personal energy or even passion in
such efforts.
An apathetic public is easily manipulated, so in Russia, politics has been
reduced to intimidating the elites. With no political competition left and
no accountability, policymaking has increasingly relied on heavy-handed and
simplistic methods and on irresponsible executors. Russian President
Vladimir Putin and his aides can get away with almost anything without fear
of having to deal with the consequences.
But in the matter of Ukraine, their methods have backfired. Russia's
circumscribed vision and shortsighted strategy have only made things worse.
Having put all his stakes on a Yanukovych victory and invested his authority
in the Ukrainian presidential election, Putin was unprepared for an outcome
that would go against him. His repeated congratulations to Yanukovych, at a
time when the results of the runoff were losing their legitimacy even in the
eyes of the Ukrainian government, showed that he had no exit strategy and
had lost touch with reality.
Putin's role in the Ukrainian vote gave rise to anti-Russian sentiments
among the Ukrainian people and deepened the rift with the West. His failure
in Ukraine is sure to raise the temptation for the Kremlin to appeal to
Russian nationalism by portraying the events there as a Western plot against
Russia. This fall Putin has been talking vaguely about Western "agents"
seeking to weaken Russia -- rhetoric that is eagerly taken up by Kremlin
aides and servile journalists. Already, a Russian public relations
specialist who handled the Kremlin effort in the Ukrainian election has
warned that unless Russia stands up to the West in Ukraine, the West will
soon be staging the same scenario in Russia itself.
During his time in office, Putin has never abandoned the idea that Russia's
modernization is impossible without Western investment and technologies, and
he has avoided capitalizing on anti-Western sentiment. If the need to cover
up his failure in Ukraine pushes him to opt for such nationalist policy, it
could put an end to what's left of Russia's modernization efforts.
The events in Ukraine evolved as a challenge to the Russian government, one
that Moscow has proved unable to handle. Yet so far the incompetence of the
government has failed to bring forth any cohesive civic effort from the
people. Russian liberals may sigh enviously and hope that the democratic
wave will someday reach their country. But, as in Ukraine, it won't happen
until the public demands it. -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The writer, editor of the Carnegie Moscow Center's Pro et Contra journal,
writes a monthly column for The Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23724-2004Nov30.html
=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 240: ARTICLE NUMBER ELEVEN
Names for the distribution list always welcome
=========================================================
11. "THE LARGER STRUGGLE OVER UKRAINE"
EDITORIAL: The Washington Times
Washington, D.C., Wed, December 01, 2004
The tug of war between Russia and the West over the electoral crisis in
Ukraine could easily escalate. On the line for Russia are geopolitical and
economic interests, not to mention face-saving concerns. For the United
States and Europe, the transit of energy resources, strategic interests and
leadership in supporting democracy are at stake. A hostile face-off between
the two sides over Ukraine's presidential election would not benefit Russia
or the West - or Ukraine for that matter.
Although the Bush administration has been accused of being too
conciliatory in its handling of the crisis, a look at the progression of
events demonstrate that U.S. officials have adeptly balanced conflicting
considerations.
Ukraine's electoral authorities said the Kremlin-backed Prime Minister
Viktor Yanukovich won the Nov. 21 vote against opposition leader
Viktor Yushchenko 49.5 percent to 46.6 percent. The election has been
broadly described as fraudulent by international observers. Ukraine's
Supreme Court is reviewing allegations of fraud presented by the
opposition.
In the run-up to the vote, Russian officials had been intervening in the
Ukrainian electoral process in a manner that can only be described as
openly manipulative. With concerns over the legitimacy of the vote
overshadowing the process, Mr. Putin then congratulated Mr. Yanukovich
on his victory. In reaction to allegations of fraud by Western sources,
Mr. Putin said Ukraine didn't need foreign meddling in its affairs -
even though that's exactly what Russia had been doing.
The Bush administration responded immediately with some strong
statements. Mr. Bush warned outgoing President Leonid Kuchma that
Washington would review its relationship with Ukraine if authorities
didn't ensure the vote was fair. Secretary of State Colin Powell said
there would be "serious consequences" if Ukraine didn't investigate
fraud charges.
Since those comments, the situation in Ukraine has reached its own critical
mass. Yushchenko supporters have taken to the streets en masse. On
Monday, outgoing Mr. Kuchma said Ukraine's peace and cooperation
depended on new balloting. Though Mr. Kuchma's comment was vague,
it signals a willingness to negotiate. Yesterday, Mr. Yushchenko's party
backed out of talks regarding the electoral crisis, but ultimately both
sides need to compromise.
Mr. Putin has also backed away from his more antagonistic stance and
negotiated today with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Mr. Bush,
meanwhile, on Monday sought to defuse tensions. Speaking near his ranch
in Texas, he said that given the allegations of fraud, the election should
"be resolved in a way that brings credit and confidence to the Ukrainian
government." That and other calibrated comments by Mr. Bush have caused
some "Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration" to allege that
the "president was putting up with too much bad behavior from Mr. Putin,"
reported the New York Times yesterday.
The administration is playing it exactly right. It has mapped out the
potential consequences to foul electoral play. It does not want to be seen
as dictating the political and legal process in Ukraine. That could cause
Mr. Yushchenko to lose credibility and further polarize a dangerously
divided country. For some critics of the administration, though, a muscular
foreign policy isn't modulated enough, while a carefully balanced one lacks
muscle. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041130-084446-7015r.htm
=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 240: ARTICLE NUMBER TWELVE
Letters to the editor are always welcome
=========================================================
12. "THE FREEDOM HATERS"
By Anne Applebaum, Columnist, The Washington Post
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A25
Just in case anyone actually thought that all of those people waving flags
on the streets of Kiev represent authentic Ukrainian sentiments, the London
Guardian informed its readers otherwise last week. In an article titled "US
campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev," the newspaper described the events
of the past 10 days as "an American creation, a sophisticated and
brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing."
In a separate article, the same paper described the whole episode as a
"postmodern coup d'etat" and a "CIA-sponsored third world uprising of
cold war days, adapted to post-Soviet conditions."
Neither author was a fringe journalist, and the Guardian is not a fringe
newspaper. Nor have their views been ignored: In the international echo
chamber that the Internet has become, these ideas have resonance. Both
articles were liberally quoted, for example, in a Web log written by the
editor of the Nation, who, while writing that she admired "citizens fighting
corrupt regimes," just as in the United States, she also noted darkly that
the wife of the Ukrainian opposition leader, a U.S. citizen of Ukrainian
descent, "worked in the Reagan White House."
Versions of this argument -- that pro-democracy movements are in fact
insidious neocon plots designed to spread American military influence --
have been around for some time. Sometimes they cite George Soros --
in this context, a right-wing capitalist -- as the source of the funding and
"slick marketing." Sometimes they cite the evil triumvirate of the National
Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute and Freedom
House, all organizations that have indeed been diligently training judges,
helping election monitors and funding human rights groups around the
world for decades, much of the time without getting much attention for it.
They seem a little odd in the Ukrainian context, given that President Bush
has bent over backward to sound conciliatory and anything but anti-Russian
(in notable contrast to his blunter but soon-to-be-retired secretary of
state, Colin Powell). In fact, the United States has historically backed
"stability" in Ukraine, which is another way of saying Russian influence.
The current president's father once made a speech in Kiev calling on
Ukraine to remain in the Soviet Union, mere weeks before the Soviet
Union disintegrated. Nevertheless, these ideas have traction. Last weekend
an Irish radio journalist angrily asked me why the United States is so keen
to expand NATO into Ukraine: Didn't Russia have a right to be frightened?
Yesterday a colleague forwarded to me an e-mail from a Dutch writer
condemning the campaign that the "CIA and other U.S. secret services"
have conducted across the former U.S.S.R.
This phenomenon is interesting on a number of accounts. The first is that it
rather dramatically overrates the influence that American money, or American
"democracy-promoters," can have in a place such as Ukraine. After all, about
the same, relatively small amount of U.S. money has been spent on promoting
democracy in Belarus, to no great effect. More to the point, rather larger
amounts of money were spent in Ukraine by Russia, whose president visited
the country twice to campaign for "his" candidate. If the ideas that
Americans and Europeans promoted had greater traction in Ukraine than
those of President Putin, that says more about Ukraine than about the United
States. To believe otherwise is, if you think about it, deeply offensive to
Ukrainians.
The larger point, though, is that the "it's-all-an-American-plot" arguments
circulating in cyberspace again demonstrate something that the writer
Christopher Hitchens, himself a former Trotskyite, has been talking about
for a long time: At least a part of the Western left -- or rather the
Western far left -- is now so anti-American, or so anti-Bush, that it
actually prefers authoritarian or totalitarian leaders to any government
that would be friendly to the United States. Many of the same people who
found it hard to say anything bad about Saddam Hussein find it equally
difficult to say anything nice about pro-democracy demonstrators in Ukraine.
Many of the same people who would refuse to condemn a dictator who is
anti-American cannot bring themselves to admire democrats who admire,
or at least don't hate, the United States. I certainly don't believe, as
President Bush sometimes simplistically says, that everyone who disagrees
with American policies in Iraq or elsewhere "hates freedom." That's why it's
so shocking to discover that some of them do. -30-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Applebaum's e-mail address is applebaumanne@washpost.com.
=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 240: ARTICLE NUMBER THIRTEEN
Letters to the editor are always welcome
=========================================================
13. THE RADICALS WITH VESTED INTEREST IN ORANGE VICTORY:
KEY SUPPORTERS DRIVING YUSHCHENKO'S BANDWAGON
Nick Paton Walsh in Kiev, The Guardian, London, UK Tue, Nov 30, 2004
KIEV - In Kiev, it appears that oranges are the only fruit. The town
centre is awash with the campaign colours - flags, overalls, ribbons - of
the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, supplied by wealthy supporters.
A vast infrastructure, also bringing in food kitchens and massive TV
screens, has been created in part by sympathetic businessmen and local
officials, but also by a few key wealthy backers to Mr Yushchenko.
Analysts portray this handful of millionaires - or billionaires - as
potential powerbrokers.
Firebrand deputy Yulia Tymoshenko has the most to lose if the pro-Russian
prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, comes to power. Wanted for extradition
by Russia for allegedly bribing officials eight years ago, she allegedly
made her fortune in the sell-off of various state gas concerns. She denies
all wrongdoing, decrying the charges as politi cal, being lodged
just before the election.
Mikhail Pogrebinsky, a government adviser turned analyst, said: "She runs
the radical element of the opposition who will take power any way."
He said MP David Zhvania, accounts of whose wealth vary, was another
key radical.
The opposition plays down a split between Ms Tymoshenko's radical
rhetoric and Mr Yushchenko's calm oratory. "There are differences,"
said a key Yushchenko backer, "but they are not that strong."
A key moderate in the team is the wealthy MP Petro Poroshenko, a
confectionery giant and the co-owner of the main opposition TV Channel
5. A second-hand car salesman in the 1990s, he moved into the juice and
beer business and is now thought to be a key Yushchenko financier.
Alexei Pogorelov, editor-in-chief of the business journal Kompanion, said:
"I have heard that . . . he is progressive and listens to criticism. Unlike
some other top managers in Ukraine, he won't throw an ashtray or mobile
phone at a member of staff who mentions some inadequacies."
MP Yevhen Chernovenko is another moderate, a soft drinks millionaire
and Mr Yushchenko's chief of security. A gruff yet warm man, he runs
the Orlan consortium. The government has claimed he has an Israeli
passport - forbidden under Ukrainian law - although he denies it.
"Poroshenko is the calm and considered one, whose real thoughts are hard
to read," said Mr Pogorelov, "but Chernovenko is more emotional and can
occasionally make an outburst." He said both men sought easier taxation
and regulation for business to ease its development.
Mr Pogrebinsky said the key supporters were "a business clan that seeks
access to power and administrative resources".
He claimed that some opposition leaders "want to close the criminal cases
open against them that involve deceiving the state of millions".
Yet Yushchenko supporters portray his backers as reformist businessmen,
keen on seeing the middle class develop and stripping away the monopolies
and tax concessions for big business that benefit the natural resource
giants behind Mr Yanukovich.
"Nobody who has been in the business climate of Ukraine over the past
decade can say they are totally clean," said Markian Bilynskyj, an
opposition analyst. -30- [Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 240: ARTICLE NUMBER FOURTEEN
=========================================================
14. "MORE THAN PRESIDENCY AT STAKE IN UKRAINE"
By John O'Sullivan, Columnist, Chicago Sun Times
Chicago, Illinois, Tuesday, November 30, 2004
We do not yet know the final outcome of the struggle for the Ukrainian
presidency between two former Ukrainian prime ministers -- the pro-
Western "reformer" Viktor Yushchenko and the pro-Russian political
"boss" Viktor Yanukovych -- in an election that was plainly neither
free nor fair.
But one thing is clear. The attempt by Ukraine's post-communist
establishment to steal the election for Yanukovych by combining the old
methods of ballot stuffing and voter intimidation with the new method of
privileged media access has failed. Everyone knows there was fraud.
Interestingly, Yushchenko himself predicted that fraud would fail on the
interesting grounds that it was "utopian." In other words, the world has
changed since the old Soviet days. People are not afraid to exercise "people
power" to achieve their rights. And if the world is watching -- as it was in
the Ukraine -- the political establishment can only crack down on their
protests at a high cost in lost investment and respectability.
Thus far, the establishment around Yanukovych and the current president,
Leonid Kuchma, has been unwilling to pay that price. The "orange revolution"
in the streets has accordingly gained support in high (or at least higher)
places. Parliament has voted by a large majority to abrogate the allegedly
fraudulent election results. Television journalists have denounced their own
previous reports on government-controlled news programs as "lies."
If Ukraine were Poland or Hungary in 1989, where the communist political
establishment was supported by less than 10 percent of the population, one
could predict with certainty that the orange revolution would succeed. New
and fairer elections would be held. Yushchenko would become president.
And a new, more liberal and transparently democratic regime would replace
the old powers.
But Ukraine is more evenly divided than that. Even allowing for fraud, the
exit polls suggest that Yanukovych received at least 40 per cent of the
votes. That support is concentrated, indeed dominant, in the eastern half of
the country. It is "stiffened" by the fact that the overwhelming majority of
ethnic Russians in Ukraine support Yanukovych. And it reflects older and
deeper divisions between the Catholic, nationalist and modernizing west
and the Orthodox, traditional and pro-Russian east.
A week ago any realistic compromise would have meant Yushchenko
accepting a bogus Yanukovych victory in return for political concessions
by the new administration. Today, the international success of the orange
revolution has reversed the odds. With both Kuchma and the Russian
foreign office accepting that new elections may be unavoidable, it may
be Yanukovych who concedes to Yushchenko in return for certain
assurances.
But the danger of conflict is not over. If Kuchma were to try preventing a
Yushchenko victory by some such maneuver as accepting new elections,
then postponing them, finally imposing martial law to "restore stability,"
that would again raise the terrible prospects of civil war and secession.
Even while we are waiting to see how the crisis finally ends, however,
certain victors and vanquished can already be glimpsed, blinking with
surprise in the bright orange light. Yushchenko is a victor even if he fails
to win the presidency -- this former member of the Ukrainian post-
communist establishment is now an international symbol of democratic
rights.
His opponent Yanukovych is, on the other hand, a loser even if he wins
since -- however well he governs -- he will be "damaged goods"
internationally and unable to win Ukraine the investment and better
relations with Europe that it needs for more balanced economic trade
and development.
Another loser is Russia's President Putin who unwisely invested vast
political capital in Yanukovych. It is odd that Putin, who has shown such
diplomatic skill in dealing with the United States, should have misread the
historical signs so badly in Russia's "near abroad." But it is a mistake
with potentially huge consequences for Putin's grand strategy of rebuilding
Russian power through an economic alliance with Ukraine, Belarus,
Kazakhstan and other former Russian possessions.
In itself this economic "Russophere" would make good political and economic
sense. There is a web of economic, trade, historical, familial, cultural and
linguistic ties linking these countries. But Putin's intervention in Ukraine
has associated it with two less appealing Russian concepts --
neo-imperialism and "managed democracy" -- so that it now looks like an
attempt to restore a Soviet system with local satraps, rigged elections,
controlled media, market dominance by Russian companies, and everyone
taking orders from Moscow. It is not an attractive vision to anyone outside
the Kremlin.
A third loser is French President Jacques Chirac and those European leaders
who want the European Union to be an anti-American counterweight to
America. International crises involving Russia tend to remind Europeans that
the United States remains a very valuable ally in a dangerous and
unpredictable world. Fantasies of a superpower Europe seem insubstantial
delusions by comparison with this tested alliance.
The final losers are the U.N. and Kofi Annan. The U.N. has been invisible.
As Kofi Annan has been trying to keep his head above oil, he has issued
his usual appeal for restraint. But this crisis has brought forth the heroes
of the Cold War from retirement -- Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa and
Margaret Thatcher -- to encourage the orange revolutionaries. And Annan
cannot begin to compete with their moral authority or the legitimacy they
can bestow. -30- [The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul30.html
=========================================================
ACTION UKRAINE REPORT-04, No. 240: ARTICLE NUMBER FIFTEEN
Your financial support for this Report is needed
=========================================================
15. "DESTABILIZING FORCES"
International spotlight must expose Moscow's machinations
COMMENTARY: by Janusz Bugajski
The Washington Times, Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
With Ukraine on the brink of revolt following the defrauded general
elections, the international spotlight must expose Moscow's machinations
in the escalating crisis.
While attention has focused on restoration of authoritarianism in Russia,
the starker danger both for America and Europe is the revival of Russian
imperialism that threatens to tear Ukraine apart.
President Vladimir Putin is intent on recapturing Russia's great-power
status and is counting on Washington's continuing acquiescence. He
pursues several strategies to undermine his neighbors, especially states
such as Ukraine that Russia has sought to absorb for more than 350
years through assimilation, genocide and state terror.
Moscow is rebuilding its regional hegemony by seeking predominant
influence over the foreign and security policies of nearby capitals. States
such as Ukraine are especially vulnerable because of Russia's over-
whelming diplomatic, economic and ethnic pressures. Moreover, Mr.
Putin's security services have deeply penetrated Ukraine and all other
former Soviet republics to ensure the loyalty of selected political leaders.
Moscow is capturing monopolistic economic positions through targeted
foreign investments and strategic infrastructure buyouts. This gives
Moscow substantial influence over a neighbor's economic, financial and
trade policies. Under Mr. Putin's direction, private business has been
mobilized to serve regime interests.
The Kremlin has also increased regional dependence on Russian energy
supplies and this relationship is being converted into long-term political
dominance. Close connections between the Kremlin and large energy
companies, whether through executive appointments or financial and
police instruments, demonstrate close coordination of foreign and
economic policy.
The Kremlin aims to limit the pace and scope of Western political and
military penetration in Russia's "near abroad." NATO control in the Balkans
and Central Europe and increasing U.S. involvement in Central Asia and the
Caucasus are seen as springboards for American domination throughout
Eurasia. Hence, the obstruction of closer links between Russia's neighbors
and Washington is envisaged as a way to restrict American hegemony.
Moscow wants to use the eastern half of Greater Europe as a springboard
for rebuilding its continental status. Simultaneously, Russia seeks a
hierarchical international-relations system in which major powers' security
agreements take precedence over smaller states between them.
Ultimately, Mr. Putin is intent on undercutting the trans-Atlantic link. By
steadily expanding its dominance in targeted countries, Russian agencies
aim to erode regional cooperation with the United States. The purpose is
to reinforce the "Eurasian strategic pole" to counterbalance American
globalism. Trans-Atlantic disputes provide fertile ground for Moscow to
augment conflicts and maneuver itself into a stronger position to determine
European security.
Moscow calculates that integration of Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova
and the subversion of other East European countries will accelerate its
strategic agenda and serve as a stepping-stone for further expansion.
And it solicits European and American consent while it reconstructs the
post-Soviet zone under its political and security umbrella. Ukraine is
now a key piece in this geopolitical chess game.
To augment its position, Russia promotes itself as a regional stabilizer
against the threat of weak states and Islamic terrorists. Internally divided
countries such as Ukraine or authoritarian regimes such as the one in
Belarus reinforce Moscow's claim that its role pacifies the region. In
reality, Mr. Putin's expansionist and divisive policies may tear Ukraine
apart into a pro-American West and a pro-Russian East while
destabilizing a wider region.
In contrast to that of Russia, it is in America's national interests to
build secure and democratic systems throughout Europe and among all
former Soviet republics that can assume membership in international
institutions. But to guarantee such a development, the U.S. needs to
intensify its engagement and fortify the region's resilience to Russian
pressure. Long-term Alliance interests should not be abandoned to
Mr. Putin's ambitions or the European Union's weaknesses.
Washington has remained reticent while the Kremlin resurrects the Russian
imperium. But the renewed Bush administration may soon reach a point of
diminishing returns in its conciliatory approach toward Mr. Putin. Rather
than help America's counterterrorism offensive, Russian support of local
dictators and repressive systems contribute to inflaming regional
instabilities, spreading terrorism and multiplying available deadly weapons.
As Ukraine lurches toward disintegration, with the potential for more direct
Russian involvement, it is time Washington drew a line across the steppes.
Moscow needs to be warned that any forcible intervention or support for
Ukraine's partition, in a replay of the Moldova scenario, will have serious
repercussions for bilateral relations. The White House must simultaneously
lean heavily on Kiev to avoid doing anything that could spark the biggest
crisis in Europe since the collapse of Yugoslavia. -30-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janusz Bugajski is director of the East European project at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies. He is the author of the just published
book "Cold Peace: Russia's New Imperialism" (New York/London:
CSIS/Greenwood Press).
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20041129-095029-8210r.htm
=========================================================
ARTICLES ARE FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
=========================================================
Ukraine Information Website: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
=========================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"
A Publication Supported Financially By Its Readers
Please add your name to our list of financial contributors!
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-04, is an in-depth news and
analysis international newsletter, produced by the www.ArtUkraine.com
Information Service (ARTUIS) and The Action Ukraine Report
Monitoring Service (TAURMS). The report is now distributed to several
thousand persons worldwide FREE of charge using the e-mail address:
ArtUkraine.com@starpower.net. This is the 240th Report issued so
far this year, out of the more than 266 to be issued in 2004.
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" is supported through The Action
Ukraine Program Fund. Financial support from readers is essential to
the future of this Report. You can become a financial sponsor of The
Action Ukraine Program Fund. Individuals, corporations, non-profit
organizations and other groups can provide support for the expanding
Action Ukraine Program by sending in contributions.
Checks should be made out to the Ukrainian Federation of America,
(UFA), a private, not-for-profit, voluntary organization. The funds should
be designated for the Action Ukraine Program Fund (AUPF), and
mailed to Zenia Chernyk, Chairperson, Ukrainian Federation of
America (UAF), 930 Henrietta Avenue, Huntingdon Valley, PA
19006-8502.
For individuals a contribution of $45-$100 is suggested. Your contribution
to help build The Action Ukraine Program to support Ukraine and her
future is very much appreciated. -30-
========================================================
If you would like to read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-04
please send your name, country of residence, and e-mail contact information
morganw@patriot.net. Additional names are welcome. If you do not wish to
read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-04, around five times per week,
let us know by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net.
========================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT"-2004 SPONSORS:
"Working to Secure Ukraine's Future"
1. THE ACTION UKRAINE COALITION (AUC): Washington, D.C.,
http://www.artukraine.com/auc/index.htm; MEMBERS:
A. UKRAINIAN AMERICAN COORDINATING COUNCIL,
(UACC), Ihor Gawdiak, President, Washington, D.C., New York, NY
B. UKRAINIAN FEDERATION OF AMERICA (UFA),
Zenia Chernyk, Chairperson; Vera M. Andryczyk, President; E.
Morgan Williams, Executive Director, Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania.
http://www.artukraine.com/ufa/index.htm
C. U.S.-UKRAINE FOUNDATION (USUF), Nadia Komarnyckyj
McConnell, President, Washington, D.C., Kyiv, Ukraine .
2. UKRAINE-U.S. BUSINESS COUNCIL, Kempton Jenkins,
President, Washington, D.C.
3. KIEV-ATLANTIC GROUP, David and Tamara Sweere, Daniel
Sweere, Kyiv and Myronivka, Ukraine, 380 44 295 7275 in Kyiv.
4. BAHRIANY FOUNDATION, INC. Dr. Anatol Lysyj, Chairman,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA,
5. ODUM- Association of American Youth of Ukrainian Descent,
Minnesota Chapter, Natalia Yarr, Chairperson
========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Executive Director, Ukrainian Federation of America
(UFA); Coordinator, The Action Ukraine Coalition (AUC);
Senior Advisor, Government Relations, U.S.-Ukraine Foundation (USUF);
Advisor, Ukraine-U.S. Business Council, Washington, D.C.;
Publisher and Editor, www.ArtUkraine.com Information Service (ARTUIS),
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013,
Tel: 202 437 4707, E-mail: morganw@patriot.net
========================================================