How will the Ukrainian election crisis be resolved?

[Northern_Piper]

I believe that the protesters are hoping so, and are making references to both the Czech example and the Rose Revolution last year in Georgia, which ousted Schevardnadze. I’ve noticed several Georgian flags being waved in the square, along with the Ukrainian flags and the orange flag of Yushchenko’s party.

[BrainGlutton]

Update: Yeshchenko and Yanukovych held a summit conference. Yanukovych offered to submit the irregularities to the courts (if Yeshchenko tells his supporters to stop demonstrating and go home). Yeshchenko rejected the offer and is calling for a new vote. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11514384%5E1702,00.html

[BrainGlutton]

Think about the context here, it’s really interesting: Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union for 72 years and has been under a rather arbitrary, authoritarian government ever since. This is a country where the people have been trained, for generations going back to the Middle Ages, to fear and obey the state. (In many Western countries, there is also the tradition of respect for the law, as distinct from the state, but that tradition was never well established in the Russian Empire/U.S.S.R., before or after the 1917 revolutions.) But it is also a country where ever generation since 1917 (and before, in some respects) has been raised on the idea that the masses can make a difference through direct revolutionary action, to wit, things like taking to the streets, manning the barricades, declaring a general strike, etc. Their sense of the latter has only been reinforced by what they watched happen in Eastern Europe – and in Moscow itself – in the early '90s. And now these two tendencies – obedient statism and revolutionary populism – are going at it head-to-head in Ukraine for the first time in living memory. How Marx and Lenin and Trotsky might have revised their thinking if they could have watched this! (Or not, who knows.)

[Tapioca_Dextrin]

It’s now looking like a re-poll is going to the way it’s going to be settled. The speaker of the parliament has saidthat

it was the most realistic solution to the country’s political crisis.

Hopefully, he will be proved right.

[Barbarian]

Ukraine’s parliament has just declared the election invalid.

[Spavined_Gelding]

The Ukranian Parliament’s vote was on the NPR news this morning – this surely puts more pressure on the Ukranian Court to hold the election to be fatally flawed, but I don’t know who (or what) has the authority to order a new election. It is starting to look as if the Ukranian armed forces are at least staying out of the fight if it is not actually backing the opposition.

It seems to me that the real question is whether Russia will stay out of it or will stage a Hungarian style restoration of a Russian leaning government. I question if Russia has the military power to do that since it seems to be fully engaged with Chetznia?. If Russia does intervene just what does that do to the Presidents vaunted relationship of trust and confidence with Putin?

If Russia does intervene just what does the United States do about it? You will remember the West did precious little about Hungary beyond lip service. Does the US tacitly accept the Ukraine as being part of Russia’s legitimate area of control? What happens to the US bases set up other former Soviet provinces / republics in support of operations in the Middle East if the Russians muscle in on the Ukraine?

[BrainGlutton]

This is now turning into a dispute between regions. The eastern province of Donetsk, where Yanukovych’s support is very high, is planning a referendum December 5 on declaring itself an autonomous republic within Ukraine – a status already enjoyed by Crimea, where there is an ongoing movement for complete independence. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/28/ukraine/index.html Problem is, Ukraine has an underdeveloped sense of nationhood and a long history of ties to Russia – in the Middle Ages, Russia was “Rus’,” a federation of city-states, and Kiev was its capital. (The invading Mongols destroyed that state, and then Ivan the Terrible began to build a new Russian Empire centered on Moscow.) And 20% of the population of Ukraine is Russian; it’s much higher in some regions, such as Crimea. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine#Demographics.) So the idea of turning the country over to Yushchenko, who wants to re-orient (or re-occident) the country towards the West, perhaps even join NATO, is a really drastic change that is not going to sit well with everybody.

[BrainGlutton]

Update, 12/1/04: The opposition has agreed to end its blockade of government buildings. The Ukrainian Parliament, by a very narrow majority, has passed a vote of no confidence in P.M. Vanukovych’s government, which means President Kuchma must now either reject that vote or appoint a new, caretaker government. The Supreme Court is mulling whether to order a do-over of the runoff election, or go back to the starting line and call for a whole new election; if the latter, both Yushchenko and Yanukovych would be barred from running. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/01/ukraine/index.html

[BrainGlutton]

Update, 12/3/04: The Ukrainian Supreme Court has (1) ruled that the Election Commission’s certification of Yanukovych as the winner was unlawful and invalid, and (2) ordered a new runoff election to take place December 26. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/03/ukraine.ruling/index.html Which would seem to resolve the crisis once and for all – except, how does anyone know the do-over runoff election will be run any cleaner than the first one was?

[BrainGlutton]

Update, 12/6/04: The two factions were on the verge of compromise but appear to have hit a snag – the pro-Russian faction, being on the verge of losing the presidency to the pro-Western faction, wants to drastically trim the powers of the presidency, simultaneously with passing legislation needed to ensure a fair election on 12/26; the pro-Western faction refuses to accept this as part of the package. Parliament will vote on both proposals tomorrow (12/7/04). http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/06/ukraine.concessions.ap/index.html

Say, why isn’t this thread getting more attention? This is important, Dopers! If this crisis ends up with Yushchenko in power, a former Soviet republic the size of France might become a real democracy and might apply to join the EU and maybe even NATO – which might raise the prospect of a similar electoral revolution and international realignment in Belarus and Russia, eventually. Putin is probably shitting his pants at the thought. Or, Ukraine could collapse into civil war. Or Russia could intervene – any kind of intervention to lead to something like a revival of the Cold War.

[sleeping]

The British Helsinki Human Rights Group alleges that the Western media has misrepresented the election:

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.

…

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.

In The Spectator (free registration required), John Laughland accuses the West of interfering in the election because Yushenko is a pro-West nationalist:

It is because of this ideological presupposition that Anglo-Saxon reporting on the Ukrainian elections has chimed in with press releases from the State Department, peddling a fairytale about a struggle between a brave and beleaguered democrat, Yushchenko, and an authoritarian Soviet nostalgic, the present Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych. All facts which contradict this morality tale are suppressed. Thus a story has been widely circulated that Yushchenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign, the fantasy being that the government was trying to bump him off. But no British or American news outlet has reported the interview by the chief physician of the Vienna clinic which treated Yushchenko for his unexplained 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.

…

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. The depiction is so skewed that Yushchenko is presented as a pro-Western free-marketeer, even though his fief in western Ukraine is an economic wasteland; while Yanukovych is presented as pro-Russian and statist, even though his electoral campaign is based on deregulation and the economy has been growing at an impressive clip. The cleanliness and prosperity of Kiev and other cities have improved noticeably.

There is, however, one thing which separates the two main candidates, and which explains the West’s determination to shoo in Yushchenko: Nato. Yanukovych has said he is against Ukraine joining; Yushchenko is in favour. **The West wants Ukraine in Nato to weaken Russia geopolitically and to have a new big client state for expensive Western weaponry, whose manufacturers fund so much of the US political process. **

Obviously, if this is true, angry editorials are perfectly understandable. Of course, the question then is whether Ukraine can be expected to become a major weapons consumer.

I, however, would lend far more credence to Reason’s Jesse Walker, who points out that, while most of Western media has presented a very skewed picture of the situation, the kind of conspiracy theory espoused by the most vocal critics is too ludicrous to hold water:

For some pundits, this adds up to a western conspiracy. In New Statesman, Mark Almond declares that “the two Georges”—Bush and Soros—may be enemies back in the States, “but outside America the missionaries of Soros’s lavishly funded ‘Open Society’ foundations march in parallel columns with the Bush administration.” In The Guardian, Ian Traynor argues that the campaigns were “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.” He didn’t use the phrase, but he was essentially comparing the revolts to viral marketing, the advertising technique in which publicists try to turn the illusion of buzz into the real thing—say, by posing as teenagers in chatrooms and talking up a new CD.

There’s a bit of truth to this story, but only a drop. The resistance movements are indeed interrelated, and American money did help nudge them forward. But there’s no evidence that they’re a creation, let alone a catspaw, of the United States. “The whole U.S. assistance thing is way overplayed,” argues Jack DuVall, president of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and co-author of A Force More Powerful, a history of “people power” revolutions. “It’s an aspect of Washington-centrism that if the United States thinks favorably about something, or someone inside the Beltway thinks favorably about something, that must mean that person is responsible for it having occurred. Which of course is absurd.” For one thing, DuVall points out, the offices in Washington that have assisted these groups are not exactly close to the Bush administration. For another, the U.S. government is hardly the only institution that has aided the uprisings. (When Otpor was fighting Milosevic, it posted all its donors on its website, in real time, to demonstrate the international breadth of its support. The diverse list undermined the claim that it was a tool of a foreign power.)

Most important, says DuVall, “You can’t simply parachute Karl Rove into a country and manufacture a revolution.” You need, he explains, a mass movement that’s rooted in civil society, tuned to local conditions, and willing to take risks. Outside aid can be helpful. It can hurt the cause, too, by opening the rebels to charges of foreign manipulation or by fostering a dependence on grants. But in a successful insurrection, it plays a marginal role; change has to be built on the ground, not abroad. Otherwise, you get a dud like Zubr, the Otpor clone in Belarus that, as the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe put it in a 2003 report, “was [an] artificially created organization built by Western donors around a romantic appeal and relying on paid activists to distribute materials. In the end…it was unsupportable because it lacked a true base.” That wasn’t the case in Serbia and Georgia, and it doesn’t seem to be the case in Ukraine.

Now, I am of the opinion that a populace who feels that their leader is illegitimate has a prima facie right to secede. But I am also wary of the possible effects of such a secession, which could well include civil war. On balance, I think I’d prefer Yanukoviech, although I would support Ukraine joining NATO.

@BrainGlutton

Or Russia could intervene – any kind of intervention to lead to something like a revival of the Cold War.

Do you really think so? I mean, sure, Putin’s a power-hungry bastard, but would he really attempt something so drastic?

[yBeayf]

Now, I am of the opinion that a populace who feels that their leader is illegitimate has a prima facie right to secede. But I am also wary of the possible effects of such a secession, which could well include civil war. On balance, I think I’d prefer Yanukoviech, although I would support Ukraine joining NATO.

Yanukovych is my man as well. I don’t support Ukraine joining NATO, though, for the simple reason that it would drive Russia batshit crazy, and that is one thing that we do not want.

Do you really think so? I mean, sure, Putin’s a power-hungry bastard, but would he really attempt something so drastic?

If it looks like eastern Ukraine is going to be dragged screaming into NATO by a newly-elected Yushchenko, I’d give Putin a 50-50 chance of intervening. Really, the most reasonable solution is to split Ukraine, with the eastern portion and Crimea going back to Russia, and the western portion forming the Republic of Galicia or whatever and westernizing to their heart’s content.

[BrainGlutton]

@sleeping

Do you really think so? I mean, sure, Putin’s a power-hungry bastard, but would he really attempt something so drastic?

Of course it wouldn’t be on the same global scale as the Cold War. But ever since the Soviet Union broke up, its successor states, particularly Russia, have been on more or less friendly terms with the U.S., the more so as we now have a common enemy in the Islamic terrorists. My concern is that the Ukraine crisis might spell an end to that happy state of affairs. It might be, once again, Russia vs. the World. Because if Putin doesn’t put his foot down about this, the Russian people might start getting ideas about democracy and westernization and joining the EU and NATO, and his own days in power might be numbered.

[New_Iskander]

@BrainGlutton

Say, why isn’t this thread getting more attention? This is important, Dopers! If this crisis ends up with Yushchenko in power, a former Soviet republic the size of France might become a real democracy and might apply to join the EU and maybe even NATO – which might raise the prospect of a similar electoral revolution and international realignment in Belarus and Russia, eventually. Putin is probably shitting his pants at the thought. Or, Ukraine could collapse into civil war. Or Russia could intervene – any kind of intervention to lead to something like a revival of the Cold War.

Hey, what about all the talk that Cold War was not so bad after all?

Russian intervention highly unlikely. Russians might speak deragatory about “Ukranian democracy”, but they are absolutely horrified by the prospect of another border war like Chechnya. Moscow would like to influence Ukraine and Putin might seem irked by events there, which cost him some degree of prestige, but any invasion of Ukraine would be absolutely unpopular in Russia today.

What is happening in Ukraine must have long-term consequences for Belarus and Russia, but only in “long-term”. Most Russians are politically apathetic people, I think.

How can some people still support Yanukovich, who presided over certified election fraud in his own favor?

[BrainGlutton]

Update: The impasse is over: The Ukrainian Parliament has finally voted to adopt the election reform laws, and to amend the constitution, curtailing the powers of the presidency (the president will no longer have the power to appoint the prime minister and cabinet but will still have veto power over the top three posts – PM, foreign minister and defense minister). Yanukovych called the vote a “soft coup d’etat.” Well, that’s the best kind, isn’t it? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6374820/

Seems to be grounds for optimism. However, here are a couple of cautionary takes on the situation.

From The Nation, 12/20/04, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&s=steele:

However Ukraine’s crisis is resolved, it is clear that interference by Russia and the United States has been massive. Viktor Yanukovich, the current Prime Minister, was Moscow’s favorite. Viktor Yushchenko, a former chairman of the Central Bank, was Washington’s. In this long-range competition Moscow’s partisanship was the more blatant and clumsy, highlighted by Vladimir Putin’s two visits to Ukraine to appear alongside Yanukovich and publicly endorse him. Russian state-controlled TV, which can be seen in large areas of Ukraine, has also done what it can to influence voters with the same one-sided coverage it serves up in Russia’s elections.

By contrast, US interference has been subtle and sophisticated, but the degree of American involvement appears to be more comprehensive than anything emanating from Moscow. And it has had minimal coverage in the largely partisan picture the Western media have painted of the Ukrainian crisis.

US funding has ranged from bankrolling opposition websites and radio stations to paying for the exit polls, which play a powerful role in mobilizing street protesters. It follows a template used four times in the past four years. The overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade in 2000 and of Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia in 2003 were US successes. A similar effort to topple Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus in 2001 failed. So too did the campaign against Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe in 2002.

<snip>

Like “humanitarian interventionism,” which has been used more than once recently as a cover for going to war, “electoral interventionism” has become a tool in Washington’s arsenal for overseas manipulation. The instruments of democracy are used selectively to topple particular rulers, and only when a US-friendly successor candidate or regime has been groomed. Countless elections in the post-Soviet space have been distorted by incumbents to a degree that probably reversed the result, usually by unfair use of state television and sometimes by direct ballot rigging. Boris Yeltsin’s constitutional referendum in Russia in 1993 and his re-election in 1996 were early cases. Azerbaijan’s presidential vote last year was also highly suspicious.

Yet after none of those polls did the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the main international observer body, or the US and other Western governments, make the furious noise they are producing today. The decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent are considered more “pro-Western” or “pro-market.” Or, as in Azerbaijan, Washington is happy with the antidemocratic policies maintained by the Aliyev dynasty because it is friendly to US oil companies.

In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the Western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups supporting him. This one-sided intervention is playing with fire. Not only is the country geographically and culturally divided–a recipe for partition or even civil war–it is also an important neighbor to Russia. 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.

Ukraine has been turned into a geostrategic matter not by Moscow but by Washington, which refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic into its orbit. The US campaign against Yanukovich accelerated this summer after outgoing President Leonid Kuchma reversed policy and said he no longer aspired to NATO membership for Ukraine. Yanukovich adopted that line.

Many Ukrainians certainly want a more democratic system. The vast bulk of the demonstrators in Kiev are undoubtedly genuine. Their enthusiasm and determination are palpable. But they do not reflect nationwide sentiment, and the support for Yanukovich in eastern Ukraine is also genuine. Nor are we watching a struggle between freedom and authoritarianism, as is romantically alleged. Yushchenko served as prime minister under Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine’s post-Soviet privatization. On some issues Yushchenko may be a better potential president than Yanukovich, but to suggest that he would provide a sea change in Ukrainian politics and economic management is naïve. Putin is not inherently against a democratic Ukraine, 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.

And from In These Times, 12/3/04, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6374820/:

Ukraine, Europe’s second-largest state by territory, is split down the middle between eastern and western populations whose historical, linguistic, religious and cultural differences make them almost foreigners to one another. Western Ukrainians, who have spent much of their history honing a strong sense of national identity under Polish and Austro-Hungarian rule, strongly favor Yushchenko’s plans to steer Ukraine into NATO and the European Union as rapidly as possible.

But half the country’s 48 million people live in the industrial eastern zones, which were part of Russia and the USSR for more than 300 years. Many of them speak no Ukrainian and identify most closely with the Russian population just across the recently established border. Yanukovych’s pledges to make Russian the country’s second official language, to allow dual Ukrainian-Russian citizenship and to join the Kremlin-sponsored free-trade union with Russia resonate strongly in Ukraine’s eastern reaches.

No matter which Viktor emerges victorious in Ukraine’s power struggle, he is likely to adopt radical measures to satisfy his loyal constituents. In either case, the breakup of Ukraine looms as a real possibility. Several western regions rejected official election results that labeled Yanukovych the winner and recognized Yushchenko as president. The eastern regions, where most of Ukraine’s industry is concentrated, are already planning referenda on “autonomy”—read rejoining Russia—if Yushchenko becomes president. And with Moscow and the West facing off over Ukraine, with sharply divergent agendas, the possibility of a new Cold War looks more likely than at any time since the USSR’s demise.

[yBeayf]

How can some people still support Yanukovich, who presided over certified election fraud in his own favor?

Because there’s (largely unreported in the West) strong evidence of fraud on the part of Yushchenko’s people, because Yushchenko’s base is the economically poor, historically Catholic west, while Yanukovych represents the wealthy, industrialized Orthodox Russian east, and because many people from the Russian side see Yushchenko as having basically stolen away the Ukrainian government with the not-so-covert backing of the West. There are strong fears, not unfounded, in eastern Ukraine that they will be politically marginalized, and be forced to provide most of the government revenue while western Ukraine is the benefit of government favor under Yushchenko. That article from The Nation that BrainGlutton linked to is a good, relatively unbiased assessment of the situation.

[sleeping]

More on the allegations of poisoning:

One of the chief doctors treating Yushchenko, Lothar Wicke, was been placed under police protection after receiving an anonymous threat. No details about the threat have been released.

So this confirms Laughland’s earlier claims about the Western media not covering it, although the actual cause has yet to be determined.

Next question: What happens if Ukraine gets split up? Would an eastern Ukraine that was on good terms with Moscow (or perhaps even going so far as to join with Russia) sate Putin’s desire or would it make him more incensed at not having all of Ukraine? And what, specifically, does the US want from Ukraine? Is the price of a falling out with Russia worth whatever economic benefits the US would reap from trade with a Western-friendly Ukraine?

[yBeayf]

Next question: What happens if Ukraine gets split up? Would an eastern Ukraine that was on good terms with Moscow (or perhaps even going so far as to join with Russia) sate Putin’s desire or would it make him more incensed at not having all of Ukraine?

It might, or it might not. Putin would probably want Kiev, if only for historical regions - it was the original center of eastern Slavdom. That western lump of Ukraine that used to be part of Galicia would probably asplode the world before they’d ever submit to Russian domination again, and I can’t imagine Russia would like them very much, either.

Is the price of a falling out with Russia worth whatever economic benefits the US would reap from trade with a Western-friendly Ukraine?

One word: No. We need to get the hell out of there with a quickness. Russia is one country we really don’t want to be pissing off.

[New_Iskander]

@yBeayf

…there’s (largely unreported in the West) strong evidence of fraud on the part of Yushchenko’s people.

What “strong evidence of fraud”? I read Russian media regularly, and didn’t see any mention of Yuschenko fraud. They speak about Yuschenko/Timoshenko corruption, anti-semitism and Western help, but never mention anything fraudulent. If there was anything, they’d bring it up for sure. Even Russians accept that there was certified (by Court) effort to rig elections on Yanukovich part only.

@yBeayf

…Yushchenko’s base is the economically poor, historically Catholic west, while Yanukovych represents the wealthy, industrialized Orthodox Russian east, and because many people from the Russian side see Yushchenko as having basically stolen away the Ukrainian government with the not-so-covert backing of the West. There are strong fears, not unfounded, in eastern Ukraine that they will be politically marginalized, and be forced to provide most of the government revenue while western Ukraine is the benefit of government favor under Yushchenko

True, there’s quite a lot of that kind of talk in Russia.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, they had the do-over election on Sunday and it looks like Yushchenko won in a landslide – but it still ain’t over! Now Yanukovych is disputing the results and vowing to take it to the Supreme Court! http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5432292

Assuming Yushchenko does manage to take office:

1. Will the Ukrainian Republic hold together? Are we going to hear more secession talk from Crimea and the eastern provinces?

2. Will Ukraine really start turning westward?

3. How will this affect Ukrainian-Russian relations?

4. How, if at all, will this affect internal politics in Russian and Belarus? Will their peoples start getting ideas about having an Orange Revolution of their own?

5. How will this affect U.S.-Russian relations? This is a conflict where we ranged up on clearly opposing sides for the first time since the Cold War ended. Can we get past that?