Skip to comments.Outside View: America's Ukraine folly
Posted on 01/06/2005 8:46:17 AM PST by Destro
Outside View: America's Ukraine folly
By William S. Lind
Outside View Contributor
Washington, DC, Jan. 5 (UPI) -- Was Ukraine's Nov. 21 presidential election stolen? Probably. Was President-elect Viktor Yushchenko legitimately elected as the country's next leader in the Dec. 26 rerun of the vote? Certainly. Would it be nice if Ukraine were a democracy? Sure. Are those the considerations that should drive American policy in the region? No.
The most important factor in U.S. policy toward the countries of the former Soviet Union ought to be our need for a strategic alliance with Russia. Geo-politically, Russia holds Christendom's vast eastern flank, which stretches all the way from the Black Sea to Vladivostok. As the remnants of the Christian world begin to wake up to the reality that Islam has resumed the strategic offensive, that flank takes on renewed importance. It is already under pressure, as events in Chechnya show all too clearly. If it collapses, Christendom will have suffered an epic defeat.
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration, the scope of whose strategic vision is measured in microns, gets none of this. In its continuing march of folly, it has dismissed Russia's vital interests in its "near abroad," which includes Ukraine. Washington did everything in its power to secure the election to Ukraine's presidency of Yushchenko, the anti-Russian candidate. When the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, who resigned as prime minister Dec. 31, won instead (illustrating Stalin's maxim that what is important is not who votes, but who counts the votes), Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States would not recognize the result. Now, Yushchenko is victorious at last. The result has been a heavy defeat for our vital ally, Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I would take a "German scumbag" over a Russian one any time.
Not I. I come from a long line of Kraut killers. Twice in a century even!
You use the ORWELLIAN understanding of democracy.
It was ANTI-democratic to massacre Russian Parliament in 1993 at the request of "democratic" Western leaders and freemarketeers after that Parliament resisted the transfer of national assets into hands of mafia and foreign speculators.
It is VERY democratic to have popular leader like Putin who does what MAJORITY of people wants him to do - ie to protect tha national interest and to get back the stolen wealth.
Are you questioning the validity of elections in Russia? Is Putin really so popular or did he win through the fraud? Is the Duma elected in a valid way? Is there a real legal oposition in Russia? Is the policy of Russian government supported by the population?
If the answer to these questions is no, yes, yes, yes, yes, then Russia IS a democracy.
Some people are confusing the democracy with the policies/regimes THEY LIKE. And so they proclaimed the massacre of Duma in 1993 "democratic" because it helped their friends to rob Russia.
By your definition if someone YOU liked won then it would have been democratic but if someone YOU DON't LIKE Wins it isn't? Ergo Putin.
In Ukraine there was a law passed that prohibited the elderly to vote by absentee ballot just prior dec 31st to limit the amount of people who would be able to cast their vote in the east. It effected a huge number of people over 2 million. Also intimidation of Yanukovich supporters in the east and publishing of their names on doors of local gov't centers to show those that "betray" their country dissuade them from voting in order to not be prosecuted.
(P.S. I m still waiting for the succession to occur.)
I meant to say west in the publishing of names upon doors of local gov't centers. in the previous post.
Strong Russia limits the power of EU and China. And as such she enhances the position of USA. Weak Russia would be absorbed by EU and USA would stop to be number one.
And in case you did not notice, the strong Soviet Union it was what made USA the leading superpower. Without Soviet Union and need for world leadership against Communism, America would be an overgrown Australia. And maybe it would not be so bad :)
The game of power is the game of balance and leveraging the strength.
How come that Yeltsin who was not able to "brainwash the Russians" and had popularity in single digits while Putin enjoys support close to 70%?
Maybe because giving away the country to the "reform minded oligarchs" (velikie vory v zakonie) was not so popular?
Beside that there is many conditions to fulfill to be a real democratic country, for example friendly foreign policy especially towards neighbors if the arent enemies.
Democracy has nothing to do with being friendly or unfriendly to the neighbors. Check the dictionary or encyclopedia.
Your pseudo-reasoning is following: "democracy" is a standard of goodness, to be "good" is to conduct policies you like, so Russia must be undemocratic. Do not Arafat had similar situation in Palestine like Putin in Russia? He was great democrat then?
"Do not Arafat had similar situation in Palestine like Putin in Russia? He was great democrat then?"
The passage above was pasted in by mistake.
Republics have never been what Americans today would call democracy. I can't think of any with universal suffrage. More like five or ten percent of adults, maybe. Venice had ten voters, as I recollect. The "Peoples Democratic Republic" type governments usually had 98% voting rates of all adults with 98% voting for the Fearless Leader. Democracy, bah. Empty promises.
Liberty, Hurrah for Liberty, First and Last. "Is life so dear, and peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and Slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"
The idea was probably not to poison him in a way where everybody could scream "the KGB poison experts did it !", I suppose.
It reminds me of Ceaucescu, whose secret service used radiation to slowly kill opponents. They died slowly of cancer, end of the problem, less troublesome than a firing squad, and nobody complains too much since the guy dies of "natural causes".
I do not assume too. For the same reason why I do not assume that Western "poisoned" Yushchenko to make him look like a unjustly persecuted man. Assume break down into "ass you and me".
BTW, this "dioxin poisoning" is an obvious hoax, despite that most of Western media and people believe it. For a LONG time the doctors COULD NOT DETECT this "dioxin" in his body despite the extremely high levels found LATER.
Th modern version "Occam's razor" is "whatever demonizes the oponent better". So the genocide in Kosovo must be true for example and Milosevic is guilty even if the proofs cannot be found.
Oh it does, the modern version:
West good, Russia bad.
Also do not forget about the Kuwait incubators babies, Saddams shredders and perfectly hidden Serbian death/rape camps.
Don't forget perfectly hidden Iraqi WMDs...
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.