Yes it is, but it's not over until it's over. The trick is to wake OUR people up and expose the phony "collapse" of the Soviet Union. That's literally all it would take for the inherently weak Communists to fold like a house of cards that they are.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
What do you think, Tap? Is Yushchenko the real deal or another Soviet stooge? How shall we attack the house of cards?
"What do you think, Tap? Is Yushchenko the real deal or another Soviet stooge? How shall we attack the house of cards?"
I think both sides of the Ukrainian election are rigged in favor of Moscow. Easiest way to attack the house of cards is for enough people to be willing to say (of the "former" Soviet Union) the Emperor has no cloths!!! Translation: Read Anatoly Golitsyn and spread the word about what's really going on over there (FReep me for some links if you like).
Might want to check out the following post in light of events in the Ukraine:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287167/posts?page=122#122
Is Yushchenko the real deal or another Soviet stooge?
Here are some thoughts from my friend in Kyiv (the quote is from e-mail I received about a month ago). He is an economist.
Why does he [the author of article about Ukraine we were discussing] think that Ukraine is similar to CEE rather than to Russia? I would disagree, and the course of events (determined objectively, not by the person of a leader!!!) confirms this. Such statements are typical for the superficial and often arrogant Western analysts that do not look deep enough, ignore even the existing literature, and then come with unwise, sometimes really foolish, and often harmful conclusions. I can refer similar kind of statement made by Robert Kravchuk, the author of quite famous book on Ukrainian political economy, who claims Kuchma to be a reformer. Both positions are simply wrong, and the respective conclusions are just BS.
So, if the Criminal wins, the future is quite clear, although I would certainly hate it. If Yushchenko wins, it may go different ways -- there are contradicting flows in his closest circle, and himself he is quite controversial. The remnants of archaic consciousness are generally incompatible with economic liberalism. For sure, he will try to restrain the rent seeking, especially by his current opponents (I'm much less sure about his allies). But the respective policy can vary from populism (with anti-oligarch inclinations, protectionism, inflation, etc. under the slogan "there should be no riches!") -- you may call it "revolution" if you will, to genuine economic liberalization (mostly the opposite, with the emphasis on entrepreneurship, transparency, and property rights). In a sense, the latter extreme can be called a revolution too, although it sill not look so.
Also, this is unclear whether Yu. is not going just to replace Kuchma in his role of arbiter -- why didn't he try to support the political reform and shape it according to the democratic principles?
There are still 4 definite points why I vote for him.
1. We need to stop the Criminal. By no means I can trust such a president.
2. Under Yu. the opposition, most probably, will survive; so the plurality of political and business interests remain. Thus, we, most probably, will have some choice. In the other case it is much less probable.
3. He has made a clear political commitment for going West. Among other factors, it will constrain the methods he will use, the policies he will conduct, and so on.
4. He seeks public support, as a normal politician should. This brings a threat of populism, but there is no other way of building a political nation but making politicians dependent on the people. And no other way of countervailing the vested interests of rent seekers .
I've got an impression that he has a lot of "common sense", if not has lost it in the fight (especially after the poisoning). If I'm right, he barely will make any harsh actions. But, of course, the policy, and especially the way of policy making, will improve -- at least, I hope so basing on the experience of his Prime Minister tenure. Those times it led to a silent revolution in the economic institutions that spurred current growth.
Hope, I answered.
Best,
VD
You are free to share this comment.