Posted on 12/04/2004 5:41:05 PM PST by A. Pole
Russian President Vladimir Putin ate crow today for his decision to support a Ukrainian candidate opposed by millions of opposition demonstrators. This isn't his first major political mistake in the region. It is becoming something of a habit.
Russian President Vladimir Putin could wind up paying a heavy political price for his meddling in the Ukrainian elections.
After the Ukranian election, Russian President Vladimir Putin was one of the first world leaders to demonstratively congratulate Ukrainian prime minister and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovich. At the Russia-European Union summit in the Netherlands last week, Putin expressed his solidarity with the disputed politician. "The Ukrainian people have cast their vote," Putin said, "a vote in favor of stability, strengthening stateliness and further democratic and economic development." No one, he said, has a "moral right" to "incite mass disturbances in a major European state." Whoever has issues with the elections in Ukraine, Putin, a trained lawyer, said, can turn to the courts where the problem will be solved "within the existing constitution and laws."
Such bureaucratic language and vestiges of the real socialist legacy, and the conjuring up of "stability" and "stateliness," say more about the state of the Kremlin than they do about Ukraine. And after this statement, which can't be dismissed as rash or thoughtless, it ought to be more difficult for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to present Putin to a doubting public as a misjudged "unblemished democrat" in liberal colors.
In Putin's foreign policy, like that in the United States, geopolitical interests rank higher than fundamental political values. But in that sense, regardless how the power struggle ends, Putin failed to achieve his goal of aligning Ukraine closer with Moscow through Victor Yanukovich's election. Even if Yanukovich succeeds in establishing himself as president of the current Ukraine, in the face of very strong opposition, he'll have no other choice than to visibly distance himself from Moscow. And it is hardly conceivable that Ukriane will fit in to the "common economic area" the Kremlin strategists are dreaming of for Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
A streak of bad luck
Recently, Putin has had little luck in his efforts to turn Russia's neighbors into tight friends and partners. Last year, he backed Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze as he aligned himself with the neo-feudal leader of the autonomous Ajaria Province, then-President Aslan Abashidze, to counter his growing opposition. Within just a few weeks, Shevardnadze fell from power as a result of mass protests that were subsidized, among others, by American organizations. And when the young and dynamic pro-West Mikhail Saakashvili got elected on the wave of the "Rose Revolution" in January, Moscow continued to side with the Abashidze. But his efforts to resist the Georgian central power with an authoritarian regime under the guise of "stability" failed at the beginning of May through another "Rose Revolution" on a Black Sea beach that forced Abashidze, like Shevardnadze, to step down.
The toppled Abashidze was disposed of by Gentleman's Agreement and flown to Moscow. Moscow secret service agents then persuaded Putin he should build up Ex-KGB man Raul Khadzhimba as a presidential candidate for elections in Abkhazia, another Georgian break-away region that borders Russia. Putin even went so far as to risk a diplomatic uproar with Georgia by demonstratively meeting with Khadzhimba, then prime minister of the Republic of Abkhazia, a "country" that wasn't even recognized by the international community. But Moscow emissaries went to Russia-friendly Abkhazia and rode roughshod over the locals -- a move that would later backfire.
The Muscovites pushed the Abkhazis to vote for Khadzhimba. And if Moscow's desires weren't listened to, it threatened to close the borders and cease pension payments to countless Russian citizens living in the small Black Sea region. But on Oct. 3, the Abkhazis didn't vote for Khadzhimba. Instead, they cast their ballots for Sergej Bagapsch, a politician friendly with Russia but not managed by the Kremlin.
The Kremlin's homemade disaster in Abkhazia was the overture to the election adventure in Kiev. There, too, Kremlin-aligned "Polit-technocrats" under the leadership of Gleb Pavlovsky, a political analyst from Odessa, made use of their special talent for turning Russia's friends against the Kremlin. The high point of Moscow's PR activities was a military parade, in historical uniforms, with Putin, Yanukovich and President Leonid Kuchma in Kiev's Independence Square on the anniversary of the liberation of the German occupation. But what was intended to be a gesture of old solidarity came across to young Ukranian observers as a mockery. Putin, with his heart for nostalgia, wanted to tend the flames of the Soviet empire without dirtying his suit with ashes.
Washington plays its deck
Without the 47 million Ukrainians, whose economic potential runs the gamut from coal mines to defense companies, Putin would just be the head of a regional power, and would have to sweat with angst every time the White House called. Indeed, that's one reason former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright lined up behind Yushchenko so early. Currently, she runs the US Democratic Party-aligned National Democratic Institute, a foundation active around the world. The foundation's Kiev office also provided training and consulting for Yushchenko's campaign.
In his campaign headquarters, Yushchenko hangs a photo of himself next to Albright in which he wears an expression much like a grateful grandchild sitting next to a generous grandmother. The International Republican Institute of the US Republican Party and the organization Freedom House, led by former CIA chief James Woolsey, also schooled organizers before the mass protests broke out. Additionally, Yushchenko's wife, Katherine, worked for the US State Department. Putin knew all of this -- he has nearly daily contact with the head of Russia's SVR foreign intelligence service, Sergei Lebedev.
Moscows hurdles didn't stop there. Take, for example, the fact that Poland's Lech Walesa flew to Kiev to be a neutral mediator in the election crisis. That must have come as a shock to the Russians -- after all, it's a lot like showing up at a restaurant and being greeted by a bouncer rather than the waiter. Members of the Polish right and nationalists would love nothing better than turmoil in the neighboring country in the hope they could retrieve the West Ukranian area near L'viv, which Poland annexed after World War I, back into a "Larger Poland." The Russian consulate in the West Ukrainian city of L'viv these days is besieged by thugs by day and sullied with slogans against "Jews and Muskovites."
Meanwhile, the Russians -- in Russia itself as well as in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea -- can hardly be thrilled about the attempted revolution in Kiev. The Russian-speaking regions in the South and East of present-day Ukraine were artificially created by the Soviet state. And in recent days, tens of thousands of Russian-speaking people have demonstrated against being used politically to turn against Russia. In Crimea, and not just the Russian city of Sebastapol, attempts at forced "Ukrainification" have been resisted for years. And on the northern coast of the Black Sea and in Eastern Ukraine, there are already discussions under way about the creation of an autonomous area to oppose the central power in Kiev.
The meltdown happening in Kiev isn't just that of a corrupt, government apparatus suspected of fraud, but also a state whose borders are no longer viable. In the growing chaos, Russian leaders could soon be faced with more questions than those posed by people in Kiev yearning to distance Ukraine from Moscow. Meanwhile, the desire of millions of Russian-speaking people currently living in Ukrainian territory to practice their culture and traditions accordingly autonomously and not under the control of a central government in Kiev continues to grow.
"[...] A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two of your powerful neighbours come to blows, they are of such a character that, if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenuously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall a prey to the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of him who has been conquered, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you. Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate.
Antiochus went into Greece, being sent for by the Aetolians to drive out the Romans. He sent envoys to the Achaeans, who were friends of the Romans, exhorting them to remain neutral; and on the other hand the Romans urged them to take up arms. This question came to be discussed in the council of the Achaeans, where the legate of Antiochus urged them to stand neutral. To this the Roman legate answered: "As for that which has been said, that it is better and more advantageous for your state not to interfere in our war, nothing can be more erroneous; because by not interfering you will be left, without favour or consideration, the guerdon of the conqueror." Thus it will always happen that he who is not your friend will demand your neutrality, whilst he who is your friend will entreat you to declare yourself with arms. And irresolute princes, to avoid present dangers, generally follow the neutral path, and are generally ruined. But when a prince declares himself gallantly in favour of one side, if the party with whom he allies himself conquers, although the victor may be powerful and may have him at his mercy, yet he is indebted to him, and there is established a bond of amity; and men are never so shameless as to become a monument of ingratitude by oppressing you. Victories after all are never so complete that the victor must not show some regard, especially to justice. But if he with whom you ally yourself loses, you may be sheltered by him, and whilst he is able he may aid you, and you become companions in a fortune that may rise again.
In the second case, when those who fight are of such a character that you have no anxiety as to who may conquer, so much the more is it greater prudence to be allied, because you assist at the destruction of one by the aid of another who, if he had been wise, would have saved him; and conquering, as it is impossible that he should not with your assistance, he remains at your discretion.[...]"
Margaret Dumont, is that you?
See the quote from Machiavelli at the bottom.
btw did u know there was a human chain formed in Lugansk Oblast(region) 200,000 people formed the 78 km human chain from Lugansk to Debaltsevo on the Russian border.
http://uatoday.net/news?class=1&categ=1&date=1102166024&mat=30594&.phtml
A.Pole I remember that passage from Machiavelli and I agree it is better to take a side then be neutral. I like the example given about the greek city state later in that chapter.
The 12th of December is the deciding factor now if it occurs with all nine regions having referendums and ratifying autonomy status it will be severely shocking to the western media (unless they ignore it)
I like the quote from Machiavelli...
This the author claims is a result of bureaucratic language and vestiges of the real socialist legacy, and the conjuring up of "stability" and "stateliness," say more about the state of the Kremlin than they do about Ukraine.
What? Urging a nation to follow its constitutional procedures is a vestige of Communism?
In any case, it is exactly what happened - it went through the Ukrainian system.
Lastly, I do agree with the author's other point that this Ukraine is an artificial construct and no matter which side won last election the other side would not want to stand by the results. The Eastern Ukrainians being Orthodox do not want to live under the Western Ukrainians and vice versa.
The author is saying that Putin's mistake was supporting Yanukovich too overtly - that his support will backfire by rendering Yanukovich illegitimate in the eyes of Ukrainians. So, even if Yanukovich wins, he will not be able to reward Putin with his loyalty. So, the implication is that Putin would have done better to support Yanukovich, but in a more covert manner.
Putin needs to send an open signal that others can rely in him. Russians/Ukrainians from the east will trust Putin and western Ukraine will respect him. Same with the friends and enemies all around Russia.
BTW, That is how he became the Russian president, and that is why Bush is friendly to him.
That is why I don't think Putin is all that scary.
I also don't think it benefits America to take a side in the Ukraine either besides supporting the process and if Ukraine does break up tomake sure it is a peaceful break up like Czechoslovakia's break up was.
I couldn't agree more. Let them work out their own problems. Besides, when George Soros and Madeleine Albright line up on one side, and Putin on the other... Putin looks better and better. God bless him as he tries to survive in the face of the wealthy but godless E.U.
I also agree that a divorce between Eastern and Western Ukraine would indeed seem to be the best solution, a la the Czechs and the Slovaks.
Ukraine should have been designated a neurtal zone liek Austria and Finland were after WW2.
America pledging to no expand NATO there and Russia and America pledging not to get involved in its politics. Leaving the EU option for membership - which would be ok to do since the Ukraine is generations away from meeting qualification for EU membership.
Removing the competition for the Ukraine would remove much the of the meddling - maybe.
No matter who wins the election the other side of the nation will not accept it.
Ping
Believe it or not, I don't find Putin that scary either. I find Putin's actions to be normally quite predictable, if you put yourself in his shoes. He is publicly defending Russians in the near-abroad, which Russians expect him to do.
He made a play to recover the Crimea and possibly the entire Black Sea coast. It rather blew up in his face, but since there is some demography and history in his favor, and the paint on the borderlines is still wet, its not surprising he might like to reshape them. If the east-Uks can be led into secession, he may yet win.
I am expecting that he will let the Ukrainian legal and electoral system work itself through, though, since the spotlight is on. If he can get the Crimea back, though, I think he will take it.
Our interest in all this, though, is not one candidate or the other, but rather that the elections and the legal wrangling be transparent. At the end of the day, whichever of the two candidates wins, whether or not the country splits, the decision needs to be cleanly above-board. I don't want to assume that Russian Ukrainians want to split the country, I want to see a clean election and clear evidence that this is the will of the people and not just the handiwork of the espionage services. A divorce is better than a bad marriage, but lets do it by the numbers.
Perfectly reasonable.
PS: Is it not funny that Europe is shaping up the way Germany since Bismark wanted it to look more or less but could not pull off by force of arms?
I have a small bone of interest in this as the Putin candidate recently became Orthodox and claimed as a goal the unity of the Orthodox in Ukraine. Badly needed, of course.
I believe you. :-)
Haha, you're kidding right? I hate Soros and Albright as much as the next guy, but they are nothing compared to Putin. Ultimately Soros and Albright are aligned with the US/Europe - Putin is not. He is a communist. You ask God to bless him to survive the "godless" E.U. - no more godless than Putin, my friend.
The communist party despises Putin. He is economically a total conservative. Yes he is attempting to bring greater state control to Russia. I suspect he got the idea from his good friend Berlusconi, who spent the night of our election at Putin's home as they watched the returns together.
Italy has the same program in place and it worked well for them to combat corruption.
Putin has a support group, Walking Together. They wear tshirts with a picture of Putin on them sometimes. They regularly demonstrate in public against communism and the Communist Party in Russia.
Putin also regularly attends church and protects Christianity with much greater zeal than it is protected here in this country. He wears a cross and has given interviews about his faith.
Russia currently has prayer and classes on Christianity in the public schools, thanks to Putin. This would not be the behavior of a communist.
All of the facts belie your accusation against Putin.
Besides, Putin also spends time with hierarchy of the same church here in America. You can find pictures of Putin on our church website, www.oca.org by searching there for "Putin".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.