NationStates Jolt Archive

There is an unspoken assumption that the West-leaning Ukrainian opposition have a more legitimate claim to power than the incumbents, and are in any case "the good guys". I would now like to raise a few points aimed at balancing the discussion somewhat.

1) The opposition's history of open anti-semitism. In much of Eastern Europe, old habits die hard, and the long period of post-war communist rule did little to address the less pleasant underlying attitudes of society. Thus, the pre-WW2 prejudice towards jews is alive and well in western Ukraine and most notably in the Baltic States, areas which were particularly enthusiastic in collaborating with the Nazis in purges of jews and those suspected of connections to resistance groups.

2) Tendency towards sectarian nationalism. The nationalist movement in Ukraine has traditionally been as hardline and sectarian as anything seen in Croatia and Serbia. Same unhelpful attitudes, similar rhetoric. This is particularly evident in the attitudes of the Polish/Ukrainian part of society towards the predominantly Russian-speaking east - basically, embarassment and distaste at the thought of having to share the same country.

3) Calls for a general strike and threats of civil war. Those currently in power have referred the matter to the courts and the Interior Ministry (the purpose of which in ex-Warsaw Pact nations is usually as the final arbitrator in political disputes) has made no statement. The leaders of the opposition, on the other hand, are threatening violence. Who is being more confrontational?

4) The "fixing" of the election. The election has split the country, predictably enough, 50-50 West-East. The West is largely rural with a number of urban centres, the East is largely urban-industrial. The discrepancy between the official count and exit polls is one of a few percent in a close vote with the country's opinion split in half. The dodgyness inherent in any East European election is hardly conclusive proof of massive electoral fraud. In addition, the US has spent so much more money backing its side in this election than has Russia, that its claims of election fixing sound pretty hollow.

5) Media coverage. How terrible that the bulk of the Ukrainian media is not covering the protests by half the country. And yet, who here has seen any interviews with people who voted in the other half? Uh-huh. The more coverage I watch, the more it seems to me that the Western media is deliberately burying the fact the other half of the country exists, just as is happening in Ukraine. Hardly a platform from which to lecture on openness.

6) Likely policy consequences. If the incumbents retain power for another term, their policies are likely to be moderated by the obvious fact that half the country is in opposition to them, and what is more, are able to do something about it. Nothing will really change for the worse. If the opposition takes power, the despised Russian-speaking industrial east will find their industries sold off to foreign concerns and/or shut down, and will end up facing mass unemployment and a slide into organised crime. That is going to be a great legacy for the EU to inherit as the new democratic Ukraine sets off on the path to membership.

7) Lastly, what I personally find so distasteful about this whole mess, is the amount of money and political and media influence exerted on the political process by the US, EU and Russia, in that order. The movement that was bankrolled by the US and EU is having its sympathy story played on global media while the other half of the country has its existence blacked out. The movement that was aided by Russia is in the meantime doing the same, albeit on a comparatively small, regional scale. What a mockery of democracy this is, that a matter of internal concern to Ukrainians should be distorted like this by the superpowers, on the global stage. The result is that there are very few people in the world who are actually qualified to conduct an impartial discussion of the issues.

This is now such a long post that no-one is going to read it. Nonetheless, hopefully it will make a few people consider events more critically than the current "defence of democracy" rhetoric.

4) The "fixing" of the election. The election has split the country, predictably enough, 50-50 West-East. The West is largely rural with a number of urban centres, the East is largely urban-industrial. The discrepancy between the official count and exit polls is one of a few percent in a close vote with the country's opinion split in half. The dodgyness inherent in any East European election is hardly conclusive proof of massive electoral fraud. In addition, the US has spent so much more money backing its side in this election than has Russia, that its claims of election fixing sound pretty hollow.
Canada and the EU have denounced the election as fraudulent as well. Just a note.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that the election was rigged. For example, in Yanukovich's home region, 750,000 new votes were cast in the runoffs, all of them for Yanukovich. It represented a 98% voter turnout, which is impossibly high.
I also want to address the tidbit on nationalism. Super nationalism is bad, obviously, but a smidgen of nationalism is always a good thing. It unites people, and forces them to work toward a common goal. The only bad part is when nationalism evolves into valuing the nation over your life, as seen pre-WWI.

I am not completely refuting the possibility of electoral manipulation. I am merely pointing out that those calling attention to it most loudly, have such a conflict of interests on their hands, resulting from partisan funding, that their objections should be carefully considered in this light.

Previous posts on this matter have merely stated that Country A has deemed the election fraudulent, therefore it is, or vice versa. I am adding some information to the debate - namely that a lot of the parties involved in the dispute have sponsored one of the sides in the election. Regarding the EU, I certainly do not view it as being more impartial than the US in this matter.

I would also like to emphasise that the incumbent candidate does enjoy the overwhelming support of the eastern half of the country. This is not a clear cut case of a communist, middle-eastern or banana republic election in which the turnout nationwide is 110% with 99% in favour of El Presidente.

Regarding Ukrainian nationalism, in the western half of the country it definitely is the unhealthy petty nationalist form, with some racial/sectarian elements. It is sufficient for any definition of them as "the good guys" to be pretty inappropriate, in the same way that no-one can seriously point to any of the groups in the Balkans and declare them to be such.

This sounds eerily like a response to My thread on the crisis in ukraine. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376214)

I am not completely refuting the possibility of electoral manipulation. I am merely pointing out that those calling attention to it most loudly, have such a conflict of interests on their hands, resulting from partisan funding, that their objections should be carefully considered in this light.

Previous posts on this matter have merely stated that Country A has deemed the election fraudulent, therefore it is, or vice versa. I am adding some information to the debate - namely that a lot of the parties involved in the dispute have sponsored one of the sides in the election. Regarding the EU, I certainly do not view it as being more impartial than the US in this matter.

I would also like to emphasise that the incumbent candidate does enjoy the overwhelming support of the eastern half of the country. This is not a clear cut case of a communist, middle-eastern or banana republic election in which the turnout nationwide is 110% with 99% in favour of El Presidente.
Still, the evidence seems overwhelming. It probably wasn't a complete rigging, partly because they can't rig all of the polls in a democracy. But they certainly rigged what they could.
As for your complaints about how foreign powers are making a mockery of democracy, well, they aren't. They epitomize democracy, whhere they can't vote, but still have a voice. The US election, for example, saw candidates endorsed by all sorts of world leaders (and it wasn't just for Kerry, either).
Regarding Ukrainian nationalism, in the western half of the country it definitely is the unhealthy petty nationalist form, with some racial/sectarian elements. It is sufficient for any definition of them as "the good guys" to be pretty inappropriate, in the same way that no-one can seriously point to any of the groups in the Balkans and declare them to be such.
No one is calling them as such. But they are Ukraine's best chance of getting out of Russia's grasp. No one can deny that a free market and exchange of ideas ultimatly improves things across the board, as it has done with several Eastern European countries. Yanukovych, in this respect, is a reactionary. That's why so many of us are hoping and praying that Yushchenko wins.

most notably in the Baltic States, areas which were particularly enthusiastic in collaborating with the Nazis in purges of jews and those suspected of connections to resistance groups.

The beliefs of a vocal and extremely violent few aren't the beliefs of the many. The Baltics that weren't blonde haired and blue-eyed took things pretty hard in the Second World War- and the whole country suffered yet again under the USSR. My Lithuanian Grandfather was enslaved by the Nazi's...there was a very large Jewish community there, and he lost a lot of Jewish friends in the war. (Obviously, i've interrogated him extensively on the subject beforehand :))I can't vouch for Latvia and Estonia, but Lithuania did take a hard knock and there was no love for either side, particularly the Nazi's, who saw Lithuania as becoming a direct province of the Reich..

If he wins, he'd better not kill the country's heavy industry, and if the free market in its infinite wisdom decides that it is uncompetitive, then he'd better have an effective plan for dealing with the criminality that will result from half the country going from poor to utterly bankrupt. Certainly if the opposition forces prevail, I will be dead set against Ukraine joining the EU far beyond the horizon of any forseeable future, until they sort out that fallout.

The way I see it, both the politicians suck.

The incumbent is just an ass, and wtf do they mean by "pro-West opposition"? Said type of opposition could stand for any number of "Western" ideals, both good AND bad

If he wins, he'd better not kill the country's heavy industry, and if the free market in its infinite wisdom decides that it is uncompetitive, then he'd better have an effective plan for dealing with the criminality that will result from half the country going from poor to utterly bankrupt. Certainly if the opposition forces prevail, I will be dead set against Ukraine joining the EU far beyond the horizon of any forseeable future, until they sort out that fallout.
But there is always the comparative advantage that every country has. The Ukraine is, for the most part, already a free-market economy, and enjoys its growing status as the breadbasket of Europe, and is still keeping its heavy industry. When Yushchenko was PM, the country was in the black ink for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union, at an amazing 12% growth rate. GDP growth is still around 8%, about on par with China's. Ukraine can succeed, but really, any country can succeed in a free market. And the free market needs every country to succeed in order to survive.

True enough, except for the last bit - "any country can succeed in a free market".

Any country can, but not every country will. Rather like the potential of children to succeed at school. What is more, some countries are artificial colonial entities with absolutely nothing to offer to a free market, and depending on how a free market is structured (no such thing as truly free) the success of every country may not actually be desirable to every participant. And the free market does not need the participation of every country in order to survive. A minority of countries making up 90%+ of the market is sufficient, a majority making up <10% of the global market falling by the wayside, is not likely to be missed.

Not being cynical here, but realistic. There's not many people out there willing to be that inclusive.

True enough, except for the last bit - "any country can succeed in a free market".

Any country can, but not every country will. Rather like the potential of children to succeed at school. What is more, some countries are artificial colonial entities with absolutely nothing to offer to a free market, and depending on how a free market is structured (no such thing as truly free) the success of every country may not actually be desirable to every participant. And the free market does not need the participation of every country in order to survive. A minority of countries making up 90%+ of the market is sufficient, a majority making up <10% of the global market falling by the wayside, is not likely to be missed.

Not being cynical here, but realistic. There's not many people out there willing to be that inclusive.

In that respect, you are right. Half of the success of a free market comes from attitude, but the Ukrainians, and most Eastern Europeans for that matter, have a positive attitude on this market.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40563000/gif/_40563403_ukraine_election2_map416.gif

This is precisely what one would expect. And the margin between the two sides is 2.85%. Again, one would expect a roughly 50-50 split of the vote between the two halves of the country. I would have expected "massive vote rigging" to be a bit more...noticable? In terms of the final result deviating from general expectations. It was always going to be close.

Right now, the two sides are being pushed into a win or lose situation, rather like what happened during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Maybe a more sensible option would be for the two sides to come to a power sharing agreement? Because whoever wins, if just one side is seen to win, the results aren't going to be good. At least in the US when exactly this sort of situation happened in 2000, there was no added factor of the Democrats having a different first language and a racial dislike of the Republicans, and the two sides living in different halves of the country.

At least in the US when exactly this sort of situation happened in 2000, there was no added factor of the Democrats having a different first language and a racial dislike of the Republicans, and the two sides living in different halves of the country.
Actually, in the US the country is also geographically split between rural and urban states.

Time will, tell, I am not totally sure of what has occured, I only have a few western media sources, and I am sure I haven't heard the entire story. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out it was rigged or not, but either way something will work itself out. I favor the pro-western candidate, but I am a westerner, so, that kinda seems somewhat natural, espescially with Putin's growing nationalism in Russia, I'd rather the Ukraine be a western buffer on Russia, over a Russian buffer on the west.

Actually, in the US the country is also geographically split between rural and urban states.
Do we regularly protest against eachother in the streets? And btw, you forgot that the rural and urban states are puny compared to the massive might of suburbia.

There is an unspoken assumption that the West-leaning Ukrainian opposition have a more legitimate claim to power than the incumbents, and are in any case "the good guys". I would now like to raise a few points aimed at balancing the discussion somewhat.

1) The opposition's history of open anti-semitism.
2) Tendency towards sectarian nationalism.
3) Calls for a general strike and threats of civil war.
4) The "fixing" of the election.
5) Media coverage.
6) Likely policy consequences.
7) Lastly

Now, the way I see it, none of that really is that important. Democracy must be the turning point here, whichever candidate with more votes, on the left or the right (geographically or politically), should win. That's the ball we're playing with tonight.

I personally say leave the Ukraine alone. I can't believe the USA. Where was the rest of the world when the fraud of 2000 in the USA happened? Nuff Said! :headbang:

I think it's ironic that the countries that react most harshly to foreign interests influencing their elections are the first to try to influence the elections of other nations.

Now, the way I see it, none of that really is that important. Democracy must be the turning point here, whichever candidate with more votes, on the left or the right (geographically or politically), should win. That's the ball we're playing with tonight.
The question is, whose vision of democracy? The US, EU and Russia have all bankrolled "their man", their election monitors, their chosen activists, their media coverage...it is impossible to say with any certainty anymore, who enjoys the greater degree of legitimacy.

Sadly, the Ukrainian courts cannot order a re-run of the election, only regional recounts. But I am beginning to think that with the amount of outside interference we have seen, the election should be considered null and void.

The question is, whose vision of democracy? The US, EU and Russia have all bankrolled "their man", their election monitors, their chosen activists, their media coverage...it is impossible to say with any certainty anymore, who enjoys the greater degree of legitimacy.

Sadly, the Ukrainian courts cannot order a re-run of the election, only regional recounts. But I am beginning to think that with the amount of outside interference we have seen, the election should be considered null and void.If you want to argue that there was too much foreign interferance for it to be an internal election, you're probably right. But no country exists completely independantly of other ones. Besides which, I have no problem with choosing a party to support before the election, but once the election is run, we don't get to cherry pick our favourite guys. Whoever wins, wins, that is democracy, that is the ideal that we have to hold above almost all of our other preferances. Only in cases of truly overwhelming tyranny by majority could we legitimately choose to sacrifice that.

All very nice, but it is getting increasingly hard to tell who has won.

The question is, whose vision of democracy? The US, EU and Russia have all bankrolled "their man", their election monitors, their chosen activists, their media coverage...it is impossible to say with any certainty anymore, who enjoys the greater degree of legitimacy.

Sadly, the Ukrainian courts cannot order a re-run of the election, only regional recounts. But I am beginning to think that with the amount of outside interference we have seen, the election should be considered null and void.
Actually, the opposition is demanding a re-vote for sometime in December.

Actually, the opposition is demanding a re-vote for sometime in December.
That would be nice, if it could be reconciled with the constitution. Maybe this time, the US, EU and Russia could be persuaded to STFU? Only in an ideal world... :(

This is now such a long post that no-one is going to read it.

I read it, TG, and I must say it's ultimately refreshing with the spin both sides (west and east, I'm afraid) are giving the situation.

That would be nice, if it could be reconciled with the constitution.
I'm sure it's fine, as long as the results aren't made official. The inauguration of Yanukovich, in fact, was blocked by their Supreme Court, so it still may be allowable. Still, countries have quirky things in their constitutions all the time. Maybe this time, the US, EU and Russia could be persuaded to STFU? Only in an ideal world... :(
None of us can. The outcome of this election has the potential to redraw the map of Eastern Europe. If Yushchenko wins, it's pay dirt as far as the EU is concerned, and will put a damper on Russia's manipulative policies on Eastern Europe. We might see their Black Sea fleet expelled from the Ukraine, and maybe Moldova might unite with Romania, as both sides have been hinting at. If not, then the status quo remains.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Ukraine%20Media%20Bias
Further evidence that this was rigged: election observers complain that the state-owned media (naturally), was heavily biased in Yanukovych's favor.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103&slug=Ukraine%20Media%20Bias
Further evidence that this was rigged: election observers complain that the state-owned media (naturally), was heavily biased in Yanukovych's favor.
Meh, I knew that. The media takes sides in any country. How many national newspapers in the UK openly backed New Labour in the last two elections? A dozen? And the Conservatives? Only two that I can think of.

And the media coverage I am seeing here, to say that it is biased towards the opposition is an understatement. I haven't seen one interview with a pro-government voter. It's not like there's a shortage of them.

So, this really doesn't give me any information that I am not taking into account already.

Meh, I knew that. The media takes sides in any country. How many national newspapers in the UK openly backed New Labour in the last two elections? A dozen? And the Conservatives? Only two that I can think of.

And the media coverage I am seeing here, to say that it is biased towards the opposition is an understatement. I haven't seen one interview with a pro-government voter. It's not like there's a shortage of them.

So, this really doesn't give me any information that I am not taking into account already.
The only problem, however, is that it is state owned. They can shove this down anyone's throats, and not show anything else. It isn't that extreme, obviously, but the state media is a primary source of info for Ukrainians. But I guess I'm embarking on a separate debate, as you know how I feel about state owned media.

bump

And btw, TG, I can't stop laughing about your banana republic post. I don't know why I've only been thinking of it now, but I am.

Hehehe. :p

I agree with Tactical Grace. However, it is also important to note that the "voting irregulatities" are found in every country by every loosing candidate. I think that if the PM had lost, then he could have found voting irregulatrities in the election also.

<snip>

Who gives you the right to close other discussions? We do not permit this in the US. Check down on recently (tried to) open sites. This "MUD" is a jerk. And I will get him.
Leave this thread, and do not bring any more puppets into it. You are off-topic, and are flamebaiting. I do not give a damn what freedoms of speech are permitted in the US - this is a UK hosted site owned by an Australian who sets the rules, and I am staff. You play by those rules, or you get toasted. And yes, I know full well this is undemocratic.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Game Moderator

Leave this thread, and do not bring any more puppets into it. You are off-topic, and are flamebaiting. I do not give a damn what freedoms of speech are permitted in the US - this is a UK hosted site owned by an Australian who sets the rules, and I am staff. You play by those rules, or you get toasted. And yes, I know full well this is undemocratic.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Game Moderator
Thanks for getting rid of him. I was getting sick of him myself.

Yeah, the lag made it take a little while longer than it should have, but the posts and poster are gone now. The thread management advantages of being a Mod...and I can hardly be accused of abusing them. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the lag made it take a little while longer than it should have, but the posts and poster are gone now. The thread management advantages of being a Mod...and I can hardly be accused of abusing them. :rolleyes:
I certainly don't think you abused them right now.

Yeah, the lag made it take a little while longer than it should have, but the posts and poster are gone now. The thread management advantages of being a Mod...and I can hardly be accused of abusing them. :rolleyes:

That's why I can forgive you locking my thread. I think the mods bend over backwards to keep their opinions from interfering with their rule enforcement. Why else would so many white supremacists come here? :p

That's why I can forgive you locking my thread. I think the mods bend over backwards to keep their opinions from interfering with their rule enforcement. Why else would so many white supremacists come here? :p
LOL, yeah, we obviously can't accommodate everyone every time, but the fact that this forum has for two years been a home to every political shade from anarchists to fascists, white supremacists, single-issue activists, every conspiracy theory you can imagine, and a series of exclusive social clubs, strongly suggests we really can't be oppressing that many groups. :p

What sucks is that no one rioted here. Kerry did not say there was voter fraud when there was. And so on...

I would say that well, democracy is all well and good, but what if yushenko (spelling?) wins outright? Its how Russia will react that scares me. ESPECIALLY if the US is allowed to put troops, warships, and bombers in the Ukraine. Then Russia will most likely respond by building up its military around the Russian/Ukrainian border. Then things lead to another and, well, Cold War 2 anyone? In an age where we already have Bin Laden to worry about? This could definately be bad.

I personally think that to keep the balance of power the way it is for the sake of international stability, i think the incumbent (yanukovich) should win. I dont have anything against the Ukrainian people, but i just want stability.

I would say that well, democracy is all well and good, but what if yushenko (spelling?) wins outright? Its how Russia will react that scares me. ESPECIALLY if the US is allowed to put troops, warships, and bombers in the Ukraine. Then Russia will most likely respond by building up its military around the Russian/Ukrainian border. Then things lead to another and, well, Cold War 2 anyone? In an age where we already have Bin Laden to worry about? This could definately be bad.

I personally think that to keep the balance of power the way it is for the sake of international stability, i think the incumbent (yanukovich) should win. I dont have anything against the Ukrainian people, but i just want stability.
The US can't find enough troops to put into the Ukraine. Besides, it's not that important. But if Yushchenko wins, there may be a buildup, but Russia wouldn't dare attack. The Ukraine will probably apply to NATO immediatly, and I bet that it'll be accepted next year. If so, Russia doesn't have a prayer.

And it is also pretty sad to see Russia still being stereotyped as a country which intends to reconquer Eastern Europe at the earliest opportunity. It is one of the prejudices of our times. The jews did not take over the world. Neither did the Japanese. Black men have not stolen our women. And Russia is not about to re-establish the Warsaw Pact. People need to get over it. What's happening now is a diplomatic contest over economic spheres of influence, not whose flag is flying over whose capital. It is the latter which is the modern form of contest, not outdated displays of overt imperialist prestige. And Russia is far from alone in playing this new game, the resources brought to bear by the US and EU have put its efforts into the shade - their interests not much more selfless.

And it is also pretty sad to see Russia still being stereotyped as a country which intends to reconquer Eastern Europe at the earliest opportunity. It is one of the prejudices of our times. The jews did not take over the world. Neither did the Japanese. Black men have not stolen our women. And Russia is not about to re-establish the Warsaw Pact. People need to get over it. What's happening now is a diplomatic contest over economic spheres of influence, not whose flag is flying over whose capital. It is the latter which is the modern form of contest, not outdated displays of overt imperialist prestige. And Russia is far from alone in playing this new game, the resources brought to bear by the US and EU have put its efforts into the shade - their interests not much more selfless.
Russia does not want overt conquest of Europe, like Stalin did. But Russia under Putin is still very controlling. One of their favorite weapons is something you can relate to: electricity. Russia is the only big supplier of energy in the region. If any of the countries does something that really pisses Russia, all they have to do is shut the grid down, and maybe even stall oil and gas supplies for a few days. And they have done it before.

Energy blackmail is a logical action however, not necessarily in this case, but generally. It is not something I can really condemn, as it makes good sense to those in a position to do so, and is undeniably a source of real influence. I know we in the West would not heisitate to make the existence of this weapon known, were roles reversed. I view it as a legitimate weapon of deterrence and balance in the modern world, rather like nuclear weapons were in years gone by, and perhaps still remain.

Energy blackmail is a logical action however, not necessarily in this case, but generally. It is not something I can really condemn, as it makes good sense to those in a position to do so, and is undeniably a source of real influence. I know we in the West would not heisitate to make the existence of this weapon known, were roles reversed. I view it as a legitimate weapon of deterrence and balance in the modern world, rather like nuclear weapons were in years gone by, and perhaps still remain.
Still, no nation will put up with this for long. If OPEC tried another oil embargo on us today, it'd be hell to pay for them. In this, Russia is far more powerful than its neighbors, but as we are seeing, some are trying to break away. I can argue that the three Baltic states are free of energy blackmail from Russia, and any intimidation in general, because they are now members of the EU. If Russia tried to influence the Baltic states the hard way, it'd lead to an ugly confrontation with Brussels. I guess that is their strategy right now: get free from the big fish by allying themselves with the bigger fish.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101473062990_14/?hub=CTVNewsAt11
Scroll down a bit, and you'll see what's so worrisome. An eastern province's concil has voted to establish a new republic. This may mean one of two things. First, Russian "peacekeepers" may be invited in to see the installation of the new government, probably Russian. The other may be that a new republic is stopped. I have a feeling that this concil will invite Russia, so police can not surpress this separation. Besides, the police may be for this. I have a feeling that the Ukrainian army may move swiftly into this area, like they did with the Crimean republic back in 1992.

The regional councils can say whatever they like, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is very unlikely to allow any kind of trouble by either side. Nor would Russia feel the need to be "invited in" - that's really just an irrational Western fear resulting from cultural stereotyping. If Ukraine aligns itself to the West, Russia would most likely stand back and make its point by imposing a financial cost through moderately increased energy prices.

Heh, both sides are sooo playing their strategic interests now. It's pretty shameful to see. America's claims to selfless support of democracy are undermined more than a little bit by the EU's pretty obvious economic motives...neither side in this dispute is showing itself in a good light frankly, I do not view anyone as having the moral high ground here. Whoever wins, is a winner in a dirty contest.

4) The "fixing" of the election. The election has split the country, predictably enough, 50-50 West-East. The West is largely rural with a number of urban centres, the East is largely urban-industrial. The discrepancy between the official count and exit polls is one of a few percent in a close vote with the country's opinion split in half. The dodgyness inherent in any East European election is hardly conclusive proof of massive electoral fraud. In addition, the US has spent so much more money backing its side in this election than has Russia, that its claims of election fixing sound pretty hollow.


Well, a participation of 103% in some regions is a proof to me.

The regional councils can say whatever they like, the Ukrainian Interior Ministry is very unlikely to allow any kind of trouble by either side. Nor would Russia feel the need to be "invited in" - that's really just an irrational Western fear resulting from cultural stereotyping. If Ukraine aligns itself to the West, Russia would most likely stand back and make its point by imposing a financial cost through moderately increased energy prices.

I didn't base it on stereotypes. Russian "peacekeepers" have been invited to protect Southern Ossetia, a province of Georgia that wants its freedom from Tblisi, and basicallly acts like its own government. Russian troops are also present in a small part of Moldova that wants to break away. Part of the reasons they are there is nostaglia for the Soviet Union, but at least part of the reason is to keep these nations in their sphere of influence. I'm sure they'd try to preserve, or even expand their influence in the Ukraine, especially if it looks like Yucschenko may win.