Ukraine

[Solver]

But the parlament voted to both cancel the results AND to say that the electoral commision did not perform its job properly, voicing distrust, I don't know what's the correct English term. So with that, the Electoral Comittee's earlier declaration should be void - and with the Constitutional Court to decide what to do now.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Solver
From what I read it will definitely matter. After all, the election comittee also was officially distrusted by the parlament, and it might be sacked soon, too.

According to their law, only current president of Ukraine (Leonid Kuchma) can officially distrust and then dismiss the central electoral committee. The parliament of Ukraine has no power over electoral commitee.

So, Che is absolutely correct.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Solver
But the parlament voted to both cancel the results AND to say that the electoral commision did not perform its job properly, voicing distrust, I don't know what's the correct English term. So with that, the Electoral Comittee's earlier declaration should be void - and with the Constitutional Court to decide what to do now.

Once again, such desisions are outside of parliament's competence. And btw, can you provide a link about this desicion of the parliament? When it has happened?
I didn't hear about that. If you are refering to the meeting of parliament which happened a couple of days ago, when Yushenko proclaimed himself the new president, then it was absolutely illegal. Basicaly this self-proclamation was a crime, an attempt of coup d'etat. Besides, only supporters of Yushenko participated in this meeting (they are minority in the parliament) and there was no needed amount of deputies to make ANY suggestion.
And once again, the parliament has no power to challenge decisions of the central electoral commitee, only the current Ukranian president Kuchma has.

[Solver]

Ahh, thanks. I see, though, that the parliament has already suggested to Kuchma that he dismiss the electoral comittee... I am pretty sure that Kuchma will opt for distrusting them officially as the best solution, backing the parliament.

[Serb]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Really? I sincerely doubt that the West has sufficient motivation to rig this election.

That's why you are not with the government yet.

Russia's strategic interest in the Ukraine, on the other hand, is well known...

West's strategic interest in Ukraine and in weakening Russia is well known as well. Read some Bzignev Zbezhinsky's (or whaterver this f*cker name is) speeches.

I can especially vouch for Canada's complete disinterest in the actual outcome of the election, so I wonder why our government has condemned it as flawed if...

WOW!!! You seem to believe that Canada is the independent country now.

[Solver]

Speaking of Russia's strategic interest... what do we know for sure about nukes in Ukraine? I hear there still might be quite some warheads remaining from Soviet times in Ukraine.

[Serb]

There is no a single nuke in Ukraine now. They had a considerable amount of them after the fall of the USSR, but all has been destroyed thanks to American help. Now Ukraine posses no nukes. And they sold their remaning Tu-160 strategic bombers to Russia. Actully they partitialy (because they still own us way more, a couple of billions $) paid-off their gas debts to Russia.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Solver
Ahh, thanks. I see, though, that the parliament has already suggested to Kuchma that he dismiss the electoral comittee... I am pretty sure that Kuchma will opt for distrusting them officially as the best solution, backing the parliament.

LINK!!!

When the hell Ukranian parliament suggested to Kuchma that he dismiss the electoral comittee? When? Anyhow, Kuchma is the guarantor of Ukranian consitution and should act (and I hope he will) in accordance with this constitution. This meeting when absolute minority of Ukranian parliament (Yushenko's supporters) proclaimed Yushenko the new president was absolutely illegal. It is not in competence of parliament to do so, (only Ukranian Central Electoral Commission can do so), esp. considering that only minority of deputies were present and there were no needed number of deputies to make ANY desicion and thus such decision has no any legal power in accordance with Ukranian law.
Kuchma as guarantor of constitution actully should initiate a case against their attempt of coup d'etat, not to support them, because this action was a violation of Ukranian constitution which Kushma vowed to protect.

[Serb]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
?

Really? It's got a mild strategic interest for sure.

I truly doubt that even the US has sufficient interest to go through with rigging the election.

The fact is that every international election monitoring group in the Ukraine saw extensive evidence of electoral fraud, in addition to excessive one-sided campaigning on the part of the State media.
I don't know how much Russia was directly involved in sabotaging this election. I do know that the election was a joke and that Russia's acceptance of the results has nothing to do with upholding the rule of law. I also know that my dispute with the results has nothing to do with geopolitics, and I'm fairly certain the same is true of my government's dispute...

NO COMMENTS.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Atahualpa


OMG they'r coming!!
Seriously nothing really severe, no? Just a normal civil disorder. We know that from Civ already.

How the hell a civil disorder could be normal? Those people violate Ukranian law by capturing state's buildings and paralyzing normal work of state's institutions.

Everythings comes to a halt so that somebody must do something about it and not sit it through as Yanukovich possibly tried to do.

Yanukovich acts wise. The opposition certanly provoke him to violence. They need a bloodbath to portray him as tyrant. So far (despite he obviosly could use force in this case according to Ukranian law) he didn't use force, didn't arrest opposition's leaders and didn't send police to stop the riot.

That's just your underestimations. Not a single country said that. Only Putin said something in that direction in favor for Yanukovich.

Oh come on
Have you seen Wernazuma III's post one page three of this thread? I strongly suggest you to read it.
"The Moscow backed president Janukowich against the western oriented democratic opponent Yushchenko, voters fraud expected..."

The west was preparing public opinion about this case long time ago before the election. They suspected there is a probability that Yushenko wouldn't win fairly, but they needed him as victor no matter how. That's the only acceptable outcome for them. They don't care a **** about democracy when their candidate have lost the election.

Not that I want to defend them, but Afghanistan was bombed only recently and is in a build up process. Same with Kosovo. Russia on the other hand was not involved in a war that it did not choose and should have had enough time to evolve as a democratic nation. And not the strange pseudo-democracy that it has become.
There are some very unsatisfying trends in russia.

That's not what I meant. I meant- when an acceptable for the west candidate wins, they have no problems with acceptance of all kinds of violations of an election. But when they need their candidate victor, but he could lose, they start a campaign of brainwashing in media, and when he finally lose, they start to shout out loud about even minor violations that really couldn't change the outcome and were commited by both sides, to make him victor by all means, no matter how.

Just open your eyes.

Help me, back your words with examples.

No, the EU wouldn't dare messing around with Ukraine's political process if it proves that Yanukovich was elected rightfully. They could not dare doing so simply because this would make them look very bad and lose them a lot of reputation and as the EU is still having some inner-EU discrepancies, bad reputation is the least thing they'd want to have.

Look, EU and US already made up their mind. Acceptence of Yanukovich's victory is out of the question for them. They need a victory of their investment Mr. Yushenko by all costs. I can assure you that in case if High Court of Ukraine will declare at Monday that Yanukovich was elected legally, they start to shout that High Court of Ukraine is a joke.

Besides the questioning of the results did not start from outside, but from within the Ukrain itself.
It's ukrainians marching around in Kiew and not the EU, the US or Russia. We should help all people in the ukraine by guaranteeing them that their descision was made all for themselves and for that matter it is important to press for an investigation.

Sure, but it is Ukranians sponsored (or brainwashed) by US. Whole this sh!t was initiated by US. They donatated money to Yushenko's election fund, not me or Putin donatated money to Yanukovich's fund. US gave him money to feed this crowd, bought them tents, entertain them (all these days on square of independence, was a constant show full of Ukranian music stars, one of the Klichko brothers was there as well), etc., US taught him how to summon this crowd and how to control it.

The court has spoken and it has denied the election results to be published as I heard lately, no need to grab a heart-attack here.

See you the day after tommorow then.

ad 1) I transform this and say that a defeat of Yanukovich is not acceptable for Putin

Sure, it would be a defeat of democracy, start of civil war in the neighbour country and another dangerous precedent of coup d'etat sponsored by Americans.

ad 2) no problem, good solution IMO

I have no problem either, buy it is not acceptable for US and EU whose bet (to find nice word for a whore) is Yushenko.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Ukraine

Originally posted by OliverFA
Kerry was leading in all the polls and no one with a common sense (starting with him) suspects of a fraud.

No he wasn't. Most of the polls just before the election showed Bush with a slight lead.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, Russia seems to be retreating a bit and saying new elections would be proper:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041127/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_elections

The Unian news agency quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko as saying Friday that Moscow regarded a potential revote favorably — an apparent significant retreat from its earlier insistence that the Nov. 21 elections were fair and valid.

It's also interesting that the pro-government news agencies seem to be in revolt as well:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041127/UKRAINEMEDIA27/International/Idx

'We're not lying any more,' defiant media in Ukraine say

Brave workers at state-owned TV break from script

By MARK MacKINNON
Saturday, November 27, 2004 - Page A23

KIEV -- It was one of the bravest acts of rebellion in a week that has seen many.

Natalia Dmitruk, a sign-language presenter with Ukraine's state-owned television channel, UT-1, decided she had translated lies for too long. On Thursday, in the middle of another broadcast that did its best to laud the establishment candidate for president, Viktor Yanukovich, while ignoring the mass demonstrations that have gripped Kiev and other cities, she stopped following the script.

"The results announced by the Central Electoral Commission are rigged. Do not believe them," she signed, an orange ribbon showing her support for opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko tied around her wrist.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have demonstrated all week in the centre of Kiev, believing the commission rigged the results of a presidential election to deny Mr. Yushchenko victory.

"Our president is Yushchenko," Ms. Dmitruk went on, her Ukrainian-language colleagues still oblivious to what was happening.

"I am very disappointed by the fact that I had to interpret lies. I will not do it any more. I do not know if you will see me again."

When the newscast was over, she walked out of the station and joined more than 200 other UT-1 journalists on a strike they said would not end until they were allowed to report the news accurately.

Within 24 hours, UT-1 had ended a decade of serving in effect as the bugle of President Leonid Kuchma's regime. While Ms. Dmitruk's act of defiance was understood by only a few who know sign language, it was quickly followed by others at her station.

One correspondent, in the middle of last night's evening news, said live on the air that she and the entire news team were going to join the protests on Independence Square as soon as they finished work. "We're not lying any more," she said.

A mood of defiance has suddenly gripped much of Ukraine's normally docile and pro-government media.

On Thursday night, the managers of the privately owned, but government-controlled, Inter and 1+1 networks struck a deal with their employees, who were threatening to resign in a body.

As a result, the huge protests in Independence Square and elsewhere in the country were broadcast nationally yesterday for the first time.

For the long-beleaguered journalists at Channel 5, which had been the only station giving the opposition significant air time, it was a late but very welcome signal that they had been on the right course all along.

The station, demonized by Mr. Kuchma and his powerful aide Viktor Medvedchuk, has been crucial in convincing Ukrainians that Sunday's election was fixed, running clips, often without commentary, of apparent polling-day violations.

More recently, it has played a key role in mobilizing opposition supporters into the streets, and its news broadcasts are shown live every hour to the crowds gathered on Independence Square.

"It's great that they're doing it, but it's a little late," said Anna Pastuch, producer of a hard-hitting investigative magazine called Forbidden Zone that frequently exposed official corruption.

She said that if the other stations had done proper journalism during the election campaign, rather than acting as propagandists for Mr. Kuchma and his hand-picked successor, Mr. Yanukovich, the country would not be in crisis now.

She believes the east, Mr. Yanukovich's support base, voted for him only because it was given misinformation on television. Channel 5's signal is blocked across the east of the country.

Canadian Ambassador Andrew Robinson complained during the campaign that UT-1 and other channels owned by businessmen close to Mr. Kuchma gave heavily biased coverage that either ignored or ridiculed the opposition.

Journalists at those stations say they were regularly issued instructions from the government about how to cover stories.

[Serb]

Originally posted by laurentius
Serb has a point there

I though this post doesn't require any smile to make it obvious that I was sarcastic. Looks like I was wrong.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

The Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship cruise missile is the most advanced misslie in the world today. It is at least ten years ahead of any American counterpart. There is no defence against it. It travels at mach 2.1 and very near the sea surface. It is programmed to take violent turns that makes it impossoble to shoot down. It can carry nuclear devices.

Thanks, as for me it's pretty obvious that Russian are leaders in military stuff field ( ok smartarses who will start to laugh about this statement, go ahead, name me a western armament and I bet I can name its Russian counterpart wich is superior), but he suggested that Russians posses some brainwashing technologies that are superior in comparison with the western ones.
How the hell one question the supremcy of FOX News?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The evil Guardian strikes again.

US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev

Ian Traynor
Friday November 26, 2004
The Guardian

With their websites and stickers, their pranks and slogans aimed at banishing widespread fear of a corrupt regime, the democracy guerrillas of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory - whatever the outcome of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev.
Ukraine, traditionally passive in its politics, has been mobilised by the young democracy activists and will never be the same again.

But while the gains of the orange-bedecked "chestnut revolution" are Ukraine's, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

That one failed. "There will be no Kostunica in Belarus," the Belarus president declared, referring to the victory in Belgrade.

But experience gained in Serbia, Georgia and Belarus has been invaluable in plotting to beat the regime of Leonid Kuchma in Kiev.

The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections.

In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations, the young Belgrade activists are for hire.

They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy, single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara. In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 - the two words "gotov je", meaning "he's finished", a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.

In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signalling that the Kuchma regime's days are numbered.

Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists' weapons. Irony and street comedy mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.

Last year, before becoming president in Georgia, the US-educated Mr Saakashvili travelled from Tbilisi to Belgrade to be coached in the techniques of mass defiance. In Belarus, the US embassy organised the dispatch of young opposition leaders to the Baltic, where they met up with Serbs travelling from Belgrade. In Serbia's case, given the hostile environment in Belgrade, the Americans organised the overthrow from neighbouring Hungary - Budapest and Szeged.

In recent weeks, several Serbs travelled to the Ukraine. Indeed, one of the leaders from Belgrade, Aleksandar Maric, was turned away at the border.

The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros's open society institute.

US pollsters and professional consultants are hired to organise focus groups and use psephological data to plot strategy.

The usually fractious oppositions have to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American.

In Serbia, US pollsters Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates discovered that the assassinated pro-western opposition leader, Zoran Djindjic, was reviled at home and had no chance of beating Milosevic fairly in an election. He was persuaded to take a back seat to the anti-western Vojislav Kostunica, who is now Serbian prime minister.

In Belarus, US officials ordered opposition parties to unite behind the dour, elderly trade unionist, Vladimir Goncharik, because he appealed to much of the Lukashenko constituency.

Officially, the US government spent $41m (£21.7m) organising and funding the year-long operation to get rid of Milosevic from October 1999. In Ukraine, the figure is said to be around $14m.

Apart from the student movement and the united opposition, the other key element in the democracy template is what is known as the "parallel vote tabulation", a counter to the election-rigging tricks beloved of disreputable regimes.

There are professional outside election monitors from bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but the Ukrainian poll, like its predecessors, also featured thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups.

Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed.

The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the authorities to respond.

The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost election.

In Belarus, President Lukashenko won, so the response was minimal. In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience, which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.

If the events in Kiev vindicate the US in its strategies for helping other people win elections and take power from anti-democratic regimes, it is certain to try to repeat the exercise elsewhere in the post-Soviet world.

The places to watch are Moldova and the authoritarian countries of central Asia.