Comments on: More from Tarik Amar on the Ukraine election

By: cloquet

cloquet — Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:35:41 +0000

What did you find out about your sources?

By: Tarik Cyril Amar

Tarik Cyril Amar — Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:52:57 +0000

to abb1: You are mistaken: neither the US nor the EU have been pushing their “interests” (please define what you are talking about here) in Ukraine, as you say, “pedal to the metal” – In fact, no EU politician made any substantial statement on elections in Ukraine, except asking for fairness (which I hope you agree even they have a right and an obligation to do) BEFORE the elections, neither did any of them turn up in Ukraine and told people they would immediately get EU accession and residence permits in Paris and Berlin if they vote for Yushchenko. Putin of Russia, however, has done exactly the equivalent of this. So pray, explain, how are the all the same in your view bare of realistic differentiation? AFTER the massive fraud and an attempt at a coup by the Kuchma-Yanukovych regime, EU leaders (Chirac, Schroeder, Solana) have been extremely (disappointingly) cautious not to upset a brazenly neo-imperialist Russia. It is true that some EU parliamentarians have now dared to go to Ukraine and openly take the side of clean elections and – horribile dictu – wear orange scarves. Again, AFTER the election fraud and the coup attempt. Putin’s dour banging on about non-intervention in Ukraine (can you see?) is a little absurd. In general, truth does usually not lie “in the middle” (of whatever)although some like to pretend to often underinformed “balance” by applying what for want of better words I would like to call vulgar Aristotelianism. Do make a close, factual study of USA, EU, Russian policy before and after the election and preferably do so “pedal to the metal” to catch up on a part of the world of which you know little. Your allusions to Cuba I have found fascinating. I think, there is some such parallel but entirely different from what you want to believe: Putin has entirely unneccesarily brutally antagonized the majority of the Ukrainian electorate by giving cover for a coup against their vote. He has also antagonized the real President of Ukraine, i.e. Yushchenko. Now, you say that the West should have made reassuring moves to help Putin get over his imperialistic hang-ups (why? Are you patronizing Russians as in need of what Truman would have called babying?). Please, tell me in some detail: why could Putin not make the reassuring move (for the Ukrainians and the West) of taking a reasonably NEUTRAL (not more) position. You do have to know – as you probably do not – that Yushchenko is not a “nationalist” and would have had no problem working well and as equal partners with the Russians, too. And here comes the real Cuba parallel: I would guess that many people around Putin also know this and they know that Putin unnecessarily chose a course of maximum risk and confrontation – and lost, and did so humiliatingly publicly. Rings a bell? That was exactly Khrushchev’s positions after his very own Cuba project blew up. And he didn’t survive that defeat politically much longer. Get it?

By: cloquet

cloquet — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:07:18 +0000

You have to be careful with your sources. Look what happened to Dan Rather. I thing Volokh would agree here.

By: nic

nic — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:12:01 +0000

Abb1, what about the Ukrainian voters? They do have interests in their own country too. Seems to me that’s not in the category of “everything else, accidental”. I’d say it’s in the category of primary importance, that’s why the condescending attitude of someone like Steele is so annoying. Steele is saying Russia has more legitimate interests than any other party. He chooses to define them as legitimate. He doesn’t qualify what those interests are and how legitimate they are, except by describing them in terms of Putin wanting to protect himself from “anti-Russian” forces on the borders. How is this not imperialism? Why can’t a Ukrainian majority, if it is established it is a majority, be legitimately in favour of being more independent from Moscow? Those who want to retain closer ties to Putin’s Russia will have their motives; but so do those who don’t. The US/Europeans could’ve easily reduced the tension by offering a reasonable compromise, like ruling out NATO expansion to Ukraine or something But why? How would that not be treating Ukraine like a pawn? If there is a significant interest from within Ukraine in joining NATO, why would the US and Europe have to concede to Putin’s imperialism by taking a decision that would be so dramatic? I don’t see the parallel with the Cuba crisis. It’s the Ukrainians who have to deal with this situation, and I don’t see why anyone has to go to preach to them about it like Steele does. Turkey entry in the EU is also supported by the US. With far stronger pressures and intereferences than here. Still, the question has to be considered on its own merits. Not everything the US favour has to be less legitimate than something else. It could’ve as easily been the pro-western guy who is manifestly more corrupt But it isn’t. Even assumning one candidate is only marginally less worse than the other (sound familiar?), you can’t just dismiss his supporters like that.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:43:20 +0000

Well, Russia has interests in Ukraine, Europe has interests in Ukraine and the US has interests in Ukraine. They all are trying to advance their interests, everything else is accidental. It could’ve as easily been the pro-western guy who is manifestly more corrupt and then he’d have been supported by the west and then the Russians would’ve been demanding a new election, and so on. What Steele is saying there, if I understood correctly, is that the Russians have a very legitimate and serious concerns about Ukraine; for them, perhaps, this looks something like the Cuban missile crisis for the Americans, well, maybe not that dramatic, but still… The US/Europeans could’ve easily reduced the tension by offering a reasonable compromise, like ruling out NATO expansion to Ukraine or something; instead they are just pressing ahead all the way, pedal to the metal. I think this is a reasonable point. Look at the US-Cuba situation – do you want something like that between Russia and Ukraine? I don’t.

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:01:57 +0000

Also, Nor is there much evidence to imagine that, were he [Yushchenko] the incumbent president facing a severe challenge, he would not have tried to falsify the poll.

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 20:01:23 +0000

Also, Nor is there much evidence to imagine that, were he the incumbent president facing a severe challenge, he would not have tried to falsify the poll.

By: nic

nic — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:44:50 +0000

abb1, maybe it’s not slimy, but it certainly is embarassingly in adulation of Putin: Putin has been clumsy [!] but to accuse Russia of imperialism because it shows close interest in adjoining states and the Russian-speaking minorities who live there is a wild exaggeration. [!!] … Many Ukrainians certainly want a more democratic system. Putin is not inherently against this, however authoritarian he is in his own country. [] What concerns him is instability, the threat of anti-Russian regimes on his borders, and American mischief. Putin’s overtly authoritarian tactics are dealt with briefly in 3 huge understatements, the US interests in terms of shady mischief and near bribing and dirty imperialist tactics. The EU, who has exactly the same position as the US, is clearly being corrupted by the American influence. The crowds of demonstrators, not representative of natiowide sentiments, since presumably the only sentiments that count are those of the pro-Putin side. Glad to hear it’s that simple…

By: roger

roger — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:24:17 +0000

Surely CT is missing an opportunity to quote Eddie Limonov, the notorious Russian writer/flashman, about the Ukraine. Limonov’s column, badly badly Englished (it sounds much like Boris on Bullwinkle) wrote the following definitive description of the election: “Myself I am absolutely cool about choice of leader for Ukraine. Both: Yanukovitch and Yushchenko are big huge swine-looking bureaucrats, both ex-prime-ministers. Their political orientations (Yanukovitch is supposedly pro-Russian and Yushchenko supposedly is pro-Western) so volatile, that they cannot be trusted those both men. Even if Yanukovitch today is posing as pro-Russian and pro-Putin man, who can stop him become pro-Western after winning an election? Nobody can stop. He didn’t signed an agreement with his blood, giving his soul to Russia. Those Ukranian gentlemen cannot be trusted. Actual President Mr. Kuchma was during his political career in turn pro-Russian, Pro-European, Pro-American and Pro-Russian again. The choice between two swine-looking bureaucrats is not so exciting. Ukranians have not choosen between say, Che Gevara and Yanukovitch, between capitalist development and Revolutionary way of life. So, what is all that hustle about? Coal miners better to drink their Ukranian vodka “Goritka,” stay home and fuck their huge wives. Do it for next elections, brothers.” Go here to read him: http://www.exile.ru /2004-November-26 /what_is_that_all_hustle_about.html

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:26:42 +0000

By the way, insofar as “western journalists denouncing Yushchenko”, check out this slimy article by Jonathan Steele. What’s so slimy about it, could you elaborate, please? Looks OK to me. Thanks.

By: Giles

Giles — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:24:12 +0000

I think the russians only make up 17% of the population so they’re more a large minority than a substantial one. Still this is the sort of sized minorities that existed in most of ex yugoslavia so the potential for trouble is obvious. But more importantly its worth remembering how Germany’s overt support of Slovenian indpendence (even though it was justified) started the whole ball rolling. Too much overt support can be dangerous.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:22:56 +0000

Carlos, Tarik hasn’t said ‘nobody voted for Yanukovych’. His earlier post- check out John Quiggin’s recent postings- did discuss the level of support for Yanukovych and the Russian-speaking Ukranians in some detail. Tarik speaks Russian fluently and has travelled in Eastern Ukraine. The point is not that ‘nobody voted for Yanukovych’- millions did. Millions voted for the Conservative Party in the last British General Election, and, er, they lost. The point is rather that even the Ukranian Central Election Commission is admitting that at least 1 million votes were not counted, or voters illegally disenfranchised, and the number may well be 3 million. Yanukovych got a big chunk of votes but nobody outside his own camp and John ‘I love Le Pen’ Laughland is prepared to say that he won the election.

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:19:18 +0000

By the way, insofar as “western journalists denouncing Yushchenko”, check out this slimy article by Jonathan Steele.

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:15:29 +0000

I haven’t heard anybody claim that “nobody voted for Yanukovich”—in fact, in all likelihood he got a substantial fraction of the (legitimate) votes; he might have even won without the election rigging (though I doubt it). But “a lot of people voted for me anyway” isn’t an excuse for stealing an election.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 03:14:40 +0000

I’ve read that there is a substantial ethnic russian minority in Ukraine. ¿What do they think about this? I mean, it’s very interesting and all, but it’s the same opinion over and over. ¿Nobody voted for Yanukovich? I’m all for democracy, but these things are usually more complicated than “we good- they bad”.