[a response to this article]

I was disappointed to see the article "A 21st Century Revolt" appear in the Guardian. Mr. Wolf was right to credit the Yushchenko team with distributing video equipment to its (volunteer) election monitors, but failed in almost every way to correctly describe the Orange Revolution.

To begin with, the article also shares a critical flaw with a January 17 New York Times article. In that article the NYT claims the Ukrainian Secret Service was a major force keeping the demonstrations peaceful based mostly on an interview with a Ukrainian Security Chief who was about to be fired for his ties to the old regime. In his article, Mr. Wolf attributes the Orange Revolution (OR) to a strategic plan carefully executed by the Yushchenko team based mostly on testimony from a longtime member of that team, Roman Bessmertny. (incorrectly referred to as Yushchenko's campaign manager; he was fired from that position for doing a poor job and replaced by Zinchenko) Has Mr. Wolf, as Mr. Chivers before him, never heard of the term "self-serving bias" ?

The "evidence of meticulous preparation" Mr. Wolf talks of would be more convincing if it had been there from the beginning. The soup kitchens and heated tents and much of the rest of the  accompanying amenities came later. I conducted a few dozen interviews with people living in the tent camp throughout its two month existence. Without fail, the people there said that the hardest part of the protest was the first few days, when they were living in ordinary camping tents, with little or no organization, and dealing with massive donations from everywhere in the city. It was too cold to sleep, so most of them didn't for a couple days. On the other hand, many of the protesters said they hadn't ever eaten as well as they did then. Those cold, sleepless, but well-fed first nights were what made the revolution, and during them the Yushchenko team was not leading but playing catch-up.

The "slickness of the concerts" is likewise ridiculous. They were not prepared in advance for an OR that no one expected (including Tymoshenko and Yushchenko by their own admission). Instead, Yushchenko had based his campaign strategy on doing an old-fashioned city-by-city tour to bypass the overwhelming negative media coverage. At least one reputable news source strongly questioned the cost effectiveness of this strategy at the time, but it had a pleasant side effect. Considering Yushchenko had the youth vote locked, and a number of big rock groups signed on with him early on his team organized concerts as part of the tour. The stage and the equipment later became leftovers from the campaign, happily available for the protests. In a sense they were part of the Yushchenko team's spontaneous contribution, just like all the other spontaneous contributors.

Not only did the Yushchenko team have little control over the "professionalism of media coverage" during the OR, they were villified by almost all media sources until after the OR had won over the people. Only one station reported on the OR from the start, and it jumped from a relatively little known (11th place) specialty channel to a much bigger contender (5th place) channel for doing so. The channel wouldn't even have been able to do that much if its journalists hadn't fought for a full year against at least three different attempts to shut them down and finally won after going on hunger strike. The rest of the channels ignored the problem until their own journalists revolted. (after the first week convinced them, too)

The people in the camp describe a sudden outpouring of good will in the first week. To give you an example, at one point a member of Pora (a key civil action group in the OR which was completely absent from Mr. Wolf's article) related to me with tears in his eyes the story of a little old grandma too poor to own a thermos, who carried a teapot covered in aluminum foil from her home so the protesters would have something warm to drink.

It was people like that grandmother who made the revolution, not Roman Bessmertniy.

[a response to this article]

This is a response to this dreadful article by Charley Reese.

(from the Action Ukraine Report)

RESPONSE TO "THE TWO VIKTORS" BY CHARLEY REESE

EDITORIAL: By Tim McQuillin

Berkeley , California , Friday, December 10, 2004

The Action Ukraine Report, Washington, D.C., Sat, Dec 11, 2004

Dear Mr. Reese:

First, like you I am not a fan of George Bush's foreign policy, which is widely viewed as imperialistic by the world, and probably rightly so. I believe his policies are both ill-conceived and poorly executed, and have greatly hurt our prestige and credibility among our allies and much of the world.

However, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the events taking place in Ukraine and their importance to America. In fact, this is the first time I agree with the way President Bush has handled our foreign policy, in which he has proven to be by far a better statesman than Vladimir Putin (which I know is not saying much at this point). In addition, your arguments are fundamentally flawed, and I have addressed them below.

First, the poor geography skills of the average American, among which you correctly included yourself, are no excuse for ignoring what is happening in Europe or any other part of the world. Just because you don't feel the need to read beyond the "superficial" journalism to better understand the situation in Ukraine does not make it any less significant. In fact, as with most important issues facing the world, they cannot be summed up in a couple of words.

Second, Russia has stuck its nose much farther into Ukrainian politics than the U.S. has up to this point. President Putin has openly supported Victor Yanukovich from the beginning of the election season. Putin made a visit to Ukraine before each round of the election in order to praise Yanukovich; sent campaign strategists to advise Yanukovich's election team; publicly endorsed Yanukovich on multiple occasions on nationwide TV both in Russia and Ukraine; posted Yanukovich campaign materials prominently in Moscow before the first round of voting by Ukrainians living in Russia; and congratulated Yanukovich on his "victory" even before the official results were confirmed by the Ukrainian Central Election Commission (which were later overturned by Ukraine's Supreme Court).

He is now allowing the mayor of Moscow and a rabid Russian nationalist politician to make speeches in eastern Ukraine to foment separatist feelings, and has reportedly sent Russian special forces to guard the current Ukrainian president. I challenge you to find that level of interference by the United States at this point.

You can be sure that we are working behind the scenes, but you do not see us in a mediator role as you do Europe and Russia. The worst that can be said of the U.S. up to this point is that we encouraged and probably helped finance and organize a democratic movement that was genuinely desired by most Ukrainians, who are sick and tired of the corruption and poverty they have endured for thirteen years.

Third, while nuclear weapons should make us take foreign policy decisions even more seriously, it does not mean that we give carte blanche to nuclear powers to pursue their own imperial ambitions. It sounds to me like you are suggesting a policy of appeasement and isolationaism. I think history has shown these to be even more dangerous policies.

It sounds like you are saying that we should only care our relations with nuclear superpowers. If I were a country that didn't have nuclear weapons, which is most of the world, that would sure be an incentive for me to get them. And with a world full of nuclear powers, you are still faced with same problems, but now everyone can blow each other up and nobody can be ignored. And don't think that Putin wouldn't try to influence elections in Mexico and Canada if he could get away with it.

Fourth, even foreign policy novices know that Ukraine lies in a very important geopolitical location. I would go into the reasons why it is important, but I doubt they would interest an isolationalist.

Sixth, we are not incompetent at foreign policy. While I disapprove that we have allied ourselves with some pretty despicable characters over the years, and we have made some terrible mistakes, I would say that we're better than average if you look at the results.

Finally, before you denounce something as significant as revolution in a country with the size and population of France, in Europe no less, I think you should first try to learn a little about the subject. Don't simply try to demean and mold every case to fit to make an ideological viewpoint. Your over-generalizations only hurts your cause.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim McQuillin has lived and traveled to Ukraine for the past seven years as a business consultant and manager. He most recently was an international election observer in both rounds of this year's presidential election. He currently resides in Berkeley, CA.

You can link to the article I am responding to here.

Well Peter, thanks for being my first angry person. I was a little worried I wasn't going to be cut out for the harsh ridicule many bloggers submit themselves to, but the softballs you're throwing me should make for a very good warm-up.

You can link to the article I am responding to here.

Click here to read at the article I am responding to.

Mr. XXX says "I really cannot see the point in supporting Mr. Yuschenko," for several reasons, none of which bears scrutiny.

First he doubts Yushchenko is really opposed to Kuchma because he served a term in office. So did the second biggest opposition figure, Yulia Tymoshenko, and she was imprisoned by this administration. Yushchenko's favorite term for administration politicians is "bandits" and he believes they attempted to assassinate him. I'd call that pretty safely "outside the coterie".

Russia gives guns to separatist militants in Georgia, the US gives democracy grants to non-profits attempting to improve public institutions and promote human rights. In Ukraine, the Russians paid many millions for Yanukovych's campaign, the US helped pay the bills for the already existing Committee of Voters of Ukraine -- a declared non-partisan group. Putin visited Ukraine three times around this election and congratulated Yanukovych with victory even before the final results were announced. (then did so again) The US has never made a statement for anything but the democratic process. Where is the "destabilization work" you are so sure the US is promoting?

If Yushchenko were to be declared president, it would be the democratic will of the citizens of Ukraine according to all credible exit polls. It would be a refutation of the pro-administration media smear campaign against Yushchenko which existed concurrently with attempts to shut down all opposition-sympathetic or independent media, the hundred of "power outages", refusal of landing rights, blocked highways and more that impeded Yushchenko's campaign, the bombing of opposition buildings and more. This isn't a vote for a President, this is a vote for a precedent. If Yanukovych becomes President by distaining, mocking, and defrauding the principles of democracy, he will continue to make decisions based on his ability to do so.

Russia seems to agree with you that the election of Yushchenko would weaken its power in Ukraine, just as democratic elections in Georgia were less in its interest than continued strongman rule by Shevardnadze. Is it in Ukraine's best interest for the US (and the EU, and the OSCE...) to attempt to "SYSTEMATICALLY" weaken ties with Russia by supporting the democratic process in the country? Isn't is obvious?

Click here to read at the article I am responding to.

Click here to read at the article I am responding to.

In his letter to the editor XXX seems to mistake and distort a number of the issues involved in the recent election in Ukraine.
 
1) He says the political standoff is damaging to Ukraine's reputation and the "polls always indicated that the Presidential race was going to be close". What he does not mention is that the most recent polls indicated that Yushchenko was ahead, or that all credible international observers (OSCE, IRI, NDI, EU, ENEMO, etc...) found major election manipulation on the part of the government, or that this final election fraud was only the capstone on a massive campaign of slander, interference, and intimidation. The results of the election were not just a "risk and problem that could always occur with a direct Presidential election" they are the result of concerted attempts by corrupt political forces and businessmen to override the results of a direct Presidential election.
 
2) The comparison with the 2000 US Election is silly. George W did not "hijack" the political process last time around. The process was that in problematic situations like the one in Florida, the Supreme Court would decide. They did. Hijacking is when you get 114% of voters in some areas of Donetsk to vote for you. Hijacking is when you have a compliant Central Election Commission declare you the legitimate president despite objections by countless international observations missions. (The OSCE gave the US Election a nice little report card, thank you very much, and even the Belgians couldn't find anything the matter that mattered). Poor ballot process is when some voters in Florida mistakenly fill out their ballots. Kicking out observer and declaring 96% of votes for the incumbent candidate, after executing a complete takeover of all media sources is hijaking. The first is unfortunate, the second is undemocratic.
 
3) "Does Ukraine keep going to the ballot box until the US Executive is happy and the Our Ukrainian block manages to secure a majority?" They went to the ballot box twice. In the first they voted for Yushchenko, in the second they voted for Yushchenko. That's plenty enough trips to the ballot box, but the Central Election Committee refused to consider a 96% turnout in Eastern strongholds irregular. Perhaps they remembered that there was precedence: numbers almost as high as these were achieved in Ukraine before... during Stalinism.
 
4) Furthermore, the US is for the democratic process, which, read the OSCE's assessment, please, was violated in this election. It's the Russians who've made their candidate preference clear.
 
5) Election by the Ukrainian Parliament is a fine solution to a different problem. It was suggested back in January by a pro-presidential Parliamentary majority that had been created after the opposition Parliamentary majority dwindled away amid accusations of bribery and coercion. The opposition considered, and considers, this a ploy to take away all the power of the Presidency right before they achieve the office, so that all business can return to normal. (or Kuchma can become newly-empowered Prime Minister) The problem in this election is not a "hung jury" with the electorate, it is fraud.
 
In the end, it is not "the Parliament that should decide how and under what conditions Ukraine is to be governed" it is the Ukrainian people, and they did, and their choice should be honored.

Click here to read at the article I am responding to.

From the chronicle of distortions #3: Yushchenko is as bad as the guys he's up against

On Oct 28, 2004, the Guardian ran a commentary by Johnathan Steele titled: "Where the Cold War Never Died". It included a nasty little swipe at Yushchenko for being undemocratic.

Steele said: "[Political observers] also wonder how much of a democrat Yushchenko is. He publicly compared supporters of one murdered journalist, Georgy Gongadze, to fascists." The original context of this remark we aren't given, and I am unfamiliar with it, but the intention is clearly not in promoting the truth, as Steele leaves out the following very vital details:

1) Ukrainians clearly do not find, and have not ever found, Yushchenko to be anti-Gongadze. To take a recent bit of proof, during the pro-Yushchenko rallies this week, Gongadze's mother appeared on the stage herself, and Gongadze's wife addressed the crowd in a videotaped message from her home in Washington. Would they be promoting him in front of millions if there were any credible argument that Yushchenko was reviling Gongadze's name, or the names of his true supporters?

2) Gongadze didn't just get killed in a random attack. He was under surveillance by the Ukrainian secret police, who let him be kidnapped by thugs, who then tortured him, killed him, and left his beheaded body lying in a ditch out in the backwoods of the Kyiv region for a passerby to find. Later a tape was released by Kuchma's bodyguard, in which he caught Kuchma saying "something should be done about that guy" just before Gongadze was killed. That Yushchenko made a comment Steele could use out of context was fit to print, that the actual *murder of the journalist in question* was linked on tape to the administration was not fit to even mention.

In the same article, Steele points out the visits by senior US officials to Ukraine as interference, claiming "They were aroused, it seems, by the outgoing president Leonid Kuchma's sudden change of line on Nato," and continuing on about how the US is just trying to get Ukraine into its NATO club because it hates Russia. What he neglects to mention is that two of the three people he mentioned (Richard Holbrooke and Henry Kissenger) were explicitly invited by the current President's son-in-law, Victor Pinchuk, and came based on his invitation.

Either Mr. Steele has been incredibly sloppy with his journalism and compounded his sloppiness with unsubstantiated accusations, or he is purposefully concealing facts. Either way, he is not a journalist you should trust when reading about Ukraine.

In regards to the Article "Western Agression" by John Laughland in the Nov 6 issue of the Spectator,

Mr. Laughland's view on the Ukrainian election is questionable, and here are some of the questions.

To begin with, let's look at foreign interference. Putin has stated that he's in favor of the government's candidate, has visitedUkraine to say so, and has also invited the government candidate to Russia repeatedly during the campaign. He repeated his support in a visit to Ukraine for a parade less than a week before the elections. L says it is the West that is being flagrantly biased, but no Western governments have come out in favor of anyone except "the winner of a free and fair election". What action or comment by an official European, Canadian orUS representative is comparable to Russian government partiality?

L accuses the OSCE of being "highly politicized" and committing repeated fraud, thus dismissing OSCE accusations that the Ukrainian media was biased during the campaign and a number of irregularities occurred during the vote. By contrast, he says Russians in the CIS observation mission have "carefully-detailed" opposition abuses and are being ignored. The CIS observer mission also came to the careful and detailed assessment that the recent vote inBelarus was "free and fair". Does L consider these observers less biased than the collection of European, Canadian and US volunteers in the OSCE mission? Which specific OSCE finding does he consider fraudulent or suspicious, and what less-biased source does he appeal to in support of his claim?

L accuses the opposition candidate of running the "wasteland" of Western Ukraine like a "fief". With what powers is the opposition controlling people's vote? Some local government in the area is elected, but much if it appointed by the administration, and widely despised. And what paragons of free-market capitalism make the East less of a "wasteland"? The government candidate's nativeDonetsk? The city generally makes the news for its crumbling coal industry, neck and neck with Nigeria for the worst safety record on the planet, and specifically makes news for a recent internationally-condemned steel privatization. (in which a powerful local businessman, Akhmetov, together with current President Kuchma's son-in-law, Victor Pinchuk, was awarded a privatization tender. They paid half the price offered by other steel companies, and only won because the rules of the tender were rewritten in a way that only Akhmetov could satisfy)Donetsk can't be his paragon, he must mean the "clean and prosperous" capital of Kyiv he congratulated the government candidate for creating. Oh, wait, Ukrainians there preferred the opposition candidate, 62% to 15%. And they're supporting the protests.

Finally, about the part where L calls young opposition voters "druggy skinheads" with ties to the ultra-nationalist UNA-UNSO party.

Never mind that the former chairman of the UNA-UNSO ran in the first round of this election against the opposition candidate and used insulting and slanderous attack ads against him, never mind that the opposition bloc has called the UNA-UNSO a bunch of fascists being used in a government smear campaign against their candidate, never mind that the two groups obviously hate each other--what did they ever have in common in the first place? As L pointed out, the opposition candidate has stated that he is pro-EU and pro-NATO. He is repeatedly and vociferously against xenophobia and cutting ties with Russia, UNA-UNSO's central platforms. The only thing the two groups share is the belief that the country is not being run properly, and according to some polls, 70% of Ukrainians believe that.

[UPDATE: Ok, looks like the UNA-UNSO proper still supports Yushchenko. Korchinksy, the former UNA-UNSO guy who ran for president in charge of a repugnant group called "Bratsvo" did indeed slander Yushchenko throughout the campaign. But the UNA-UNSO party still decided to back Yushchenko. I'm not entirely certain about the reason for this, but from talking with them, I think it is because the UNA-UNSO guys do not care about his policy issues as much as Kuchma and Yanukovych "selling out" to the Russians. They're old fashioned ultra-nationalists, but apparently the non-Bratsvo ones are willing to compromise.]

 L found a young man in Ukraine who is angrier at the government than he is interested in policy. Is this either surprising or scandalous? Oh, and no points to L for his own bit of slanderous innuendo in his lead-in about anti-Semitism in a student classroom. Aside from a friend's anecdote from some unspecified time a few years ago, what does L have that proves pro-opposition "young reformers" in Western Ukrainian are Jew-haters by another name?