ORANGE DYKUN

SENT JAN. 23, 2005 or on Yushchenko's Inauguration Day

2006-01-23T14:23:00.000-08:00

DIRECT FROM KYIV, A HOPEFUL MESSAGE

(Note: this was one heck of an optimistic note generated on that exciting day. . .)

Greetings Everyone,

I am writing to you from an internet club on Independence Square in central Kyiv. Yushchenko was just inaugurated inside the parlaiment buildings, and there is a huge crowd of 100,000 or more gathered on the square, and who knows how many more thousands are milling about the streets of the capital. The atmosphere is positively jubiliant, and for the moment, people are standing in the crowd, shaking hands, hugging, some I saw crying, and chanting, going through each of the chants one could hear during the course of the Orange Revolution:

"Yu-shchen-ko Pre-si-dent"

"Together We are Many, We Won't be Overcome!"

"East and West Together!"

etc. Where I was standing at least, people around me dwelled on this last chant, as within our midst were a few Yanukovych demonstrators.

That's it for now--I now have the dubious task of finding my family and friends from Pidhajtsi once again, through this jubiliant crowd. However, milling through this crowd or multitude is positively energizing. I have seen here that a government can be made by the people; and I have great hope that here, it will remain for some time for and of the people, too--so much potential has been unleashed in this country. It took so much to turn the lights on again in this country, and so many of the people who labored here in the dark seem very ready to work in the light. People can change as much as governments. There are sincere people doing good work here, who at one point played the oligarchy game--they played it, they changed themselves, and they worked with the people to change this country. Change is quite possible, on personal and social scales, or so I hope time and the Orange Revolution well tell. . .

Stefan

PS--as I was about to hit send, someone came walking in the door of this club, and through the open door blew in not only a blast of frigid winter air, but a decibel breaking cheer of "Hooray!"

People are sticking around on the square. Its time to celebrate!

SEE PHOTOS OF THE DAY IN THE POST BELOW. . .

Inauguration Photos

2006-01-23T12:46:00.000-08:00

I was standing next to this guy during the inauguration who was holding one Ukrainian and one Russian flag. He spoke to his mother in Russian and to Tato in Ukrainian; his mother was born somewhere in the midst of Siberia and was the one holding the Yushchenko flag. He told me that he saw Ukraine and Russia as cousins within an European extended family, but that Russia was a cousin that had always been a bit estranged from the family, always rocking the boat and tyring to bully its cousin to go along with his shenanigans. He said that he hoped that the OR would be an example, and that the Russian grassroots would be emboldened by this display of pro-democracy sentiment in Ukraine. He said that one of his cousins--from his mother's side, from Russia--who was working in some EU country (I can't remember which) had, during the OR, walked near the Russian embassy in whatever country, drinking Fanta while others ate oranges or also drank Fanta.

This girl was from Ivano-Frankivsk. She came to Kyiv, so she said, the first day of the OR in November, and had been sleeping in the tent camp ever since. She was among the thousand or so who had, after the end of the mass demonstrations, declared that they would not be leaving the camp until Yushchenko had once and for all been inaugurated as president. However, their numbers dwindled after the Xmas holiday in the beginning of January, as of course many wanted to be home for the holidays. Nonetheless, a few hundred remained for the inauguration. However, just before the inauguration, Yushchenko and gang, especially through the agency of Roman Bezsmertnyj, had attempted to convince those who had remained in the camp to clear out in time for the inauguration ceremony. The idea was to have a "civilized" appearance for the events, and that the camp whad become unnecessary. This made a lot of people mad. I was too. Those people who stayed in the camp should have been honored, rather than treated as a nuissance who were supposedly making the inauguration ceremony seem uncultured. Yushchenko should have felt only so honored that these people had been willing to see the active phase of the OR to its real conclusion. But again, as always, Yushchie was operating with some idea of what it means to be a gentleman. I understand that he wanted to be inaugurated in a way that demonstrated his intention to be a president for all of Ukraine; but by making such a big deal about the continued presence of the camp, Yushchenko et al gave more cause for the divisions within Ukraine to be expressed rather than transcended.

Anyhow, this girl said (I am paraphrasing here, as I don't recall her exact words and don't have time at the moment to look them up on my computer), "I am not going anywhere. I did not demonstrate to have a new authority come to power and tell me when I should demonstrate or not. I said that I was going to stay until the inauguration, and that is what I intend to do. I will go home after today."

The next night, Monday night, was an emotional goodbye as the remaining people in the tent camp kept their word and moved on.

I thought it was beautiful and great that a portion of the camp still stood during the inauguration and that the thousands who milled on Khreshchatyk on inauguration day could interact with those who had remained.

The inauguration, however one wanted to cut it, was a celebration of the victory of the OR. If it was not to be so, the columns of the Palace Ukrainy should not have been orange; orange balloons should not have been flown; no speeches about the OR should have been made, etc. The attempt to remove the camp was ridiculous and unnecessary.

SENT NOV. 30, 2004, or DAY 9 of OR, entry II

2005-11-27T20:08:00.000-08:00

OPPOSITION CALLS OFF NEGOTIATIONS

Greetings Friends and Family,

The opposition has called off all negotiations with the government of Viktor Janukovych since it has become abundantly clear that they have no intention of truly compromising or listening to opposition demands. Janukovych stated today that he would only agree to another election if there was valid proof of vote fraud, which he claims he has not yet seen. Also, the Supreme Court of Ukraine has been "reviewing" the issue of vote fraud for two days now and has made no sign of acknowledging the claims of the opposition and Western observers that the vote was rigged. This was Jushchenko's last hope that a strategy of negotiating with the government might succeed--if the Court had ruled the elections as fraudulent, then there would be a third election without questions asked. It appears that the Court is the last stronghold of authorities--rumors are that Kuchma is using the court to stop approval of a third election (by intimdation and threats to the jurors) while trying to publically save face by publically condeming the elections as rigged.

I could have said I knew it. . .well, I will. There is no talking with this government. They are proving it now, and it is very scary to think of what might happen next. Although I was frustrated at first with Jushchenko's embarking on negotiations, I had come to think OK, maybe this is working, given all the uproar that happened yesterday, with Janukovych apparently loosing key supporters. Now there is yet another upset. People are angry and tired, and many have been in Kyiv without a decent place to sleep and eat for days, some for over a week. The scene of protestors storming the parliament--I think more of this is to come. Tomorrow will be very interesting.

Two things, both hopeful: despite Janukovych's (and Kuchma's behind-the-scenes) refusal to cooperate with the opposition, the huge uproar in the parliament over Kharkiv's and Donetsk's declarations of autonomy has caused those state's parliaments and national deputies to rescind their calls for autonomy.

Second, I heard today on Ternopil radio an interview with a fellow from the city of Ternopil (remember that Ukraine's states are named after their capital cities) who has been in Kyiv since November 22. He was asked, when do you plan to come home, and he said, "DO PEREMOHY budu v Kyjevi! (I will be in Kyiv until Victory)!"

And oh, one more thing: I am tired of the Western press constantly hammering the issue of Ukraine's East-West, Ukrainian-speaking-Russian-speaking divide without qualification. What I mean is this: Ukraine is indeed a nation with regional differences and linguistic and cultural differences, and there is indeed a West-East divide. The point however is that this need not be a political division. The post-Soviet leadership, like the Soviet leadership, like the Imperial leadership before as well, all have sought to maintain its power in this country by manipulating these differences, by politicizing issues of culture. The Russophile oligarchy does so in Ukraine by convincing a segment of the Russian speaking population that the Russian language is under threat in Ukraine and that the opposition threatens to break off any cooperation between Ukraine and Russia. All of this is nonsense. The Russian language is not threatened in Ukraine in any way imaginable. Every news program has both a Russian and Ukrainian variant. Many talk shows have one announcer who speaks Russian, the other Ukrainian. Most foreign movies and books come to Ukraine dubbed and translated in Russian. The pop music industry is dominated by Russian variants, although the Ukrainian pop industry is strong and growing. Almost all Ukrainian-speakers can speak and understand Russian. The same can not be said of Russian-speakers in Ukraine, although a growing number of them are able to at least understand it. And Ukraine already cooperates with Russia enormously. If the Russophile oligarchy was not so dependent on keeping Russian-speaking voters alienated from Ukrainian-speaking voters to stay in power, one would look at Ukraine's cultural diversity and regional variations as something to be cherished. So all reporters writing about Ukraine should emphasize how authorities, through their propaganda, policies, and control of media are keeping Ukraine divided. And then they should report that a large number of Jushchenko supporters have spoken to the pro-Jushchenko masses from the central Independence Square in Kyiv in Russian. In fact, one of the most incredible moments to have occured yet--to my mind--was when the General-Major of Ukraine's police forces declared his support for Jushchenko on Saturday or Sunday (I forget exactly when), and said speaking in Russian that he was happy "that the time has come in which we can say 'No' to this regime."

Ukraine is a nation, like every society throughout human history, made up of differences--of difference of language, culture, religion, creed, and it should remain as such. The succes of a government is how much it can promote and maintain harmony between differences. Ukrainians know themselves that differences appear even when everyone is of the same supposed language and culture. Differences of opinion and creed then take over from differences of language and culture. There is no eliminating differences. To be a mature human being, one must love and respect those who are different from you. Therefore I personally am as much against Ukrainian ultranationalists who think Russian should be wiped off Ukraine's linguistic map of as much as I am against Russian ultranationalists who think Ukraine is nothing other than Little Russia. It would be a shame if a future Ukraine could no longer speak nor understand Russian. What needs to change is that Russian-speakers in a future Ukraine need to be able to speak and understand Ukrainian as well as Ukrainian speakers already can in Russian. And this is the kind of future Ukraine that Jushcheno and the opposition in general are struggling for--and so it is important to note that the truly ultra-nationalistic Ukrainian parties, such as the OUN (which is a shadow of its former self) and the character of (I forget his first name) ? Kozak, have rejected Jushchenko, not only because he's tolerant of Russian language, but also because he's got an American-born wife (Jushchenko's wife is Ukrainian-American). Jushchenko is too tolerant for their intolerant tastes.

Below are two articles from Yahoo/Europe/AP, and one that I wrote this weekend when I was feeling frustrated with Jushchenko for negotiating. I didn't send it at first because I had grown more tolerant of his attempt to negotiate, but now it seems more apropos.

Peace and Love,

Stefan

The first article, that I wrote, I posted earlier to this blog here: "Viktor Yushchenko--Reluctant Revolutionary?"

Ukraine Opposition Ends Compromise Talks
1 hour, 38 minutes ago

Europe - AP
By NATASHA LISOVA, Associated Press Writer
KIEV, Ukraine - Opposition supporters on Tuesday abruptly broke off compromise talks over Ukraine's disputed presidential election after pro-government lawmakers blocked a no-confidence motion seeking to topple the prime minister, who was declared the victor in last week's vote despite allegations of massive fraud.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Ukraine Elections

High Court Meets Again on Ukraine Election(AP Video)

The opposition's rejection of the talks raises pressure on Ukrainian authorities, while Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said the crisis in the former Soviet republic must be resolved without foreign meddling.
The Supreme Court was wrapping up a second day of hearings with no sign of a decision on an opposition appeal to annul the results from the Nov. 21 runoff election, which put Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych ahead by 871,402 votes.
The moves came after outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, who did not run in the election, spoke out harshly against any steps that would divide this nation of 48 million and said he would support a new vote.
Ukraine's government has been paralyzed since the election results sent hundreds of thousands into the streets of the capital for round-the-clock protests to support opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko, who claims he was robbed of victory.
Putin told German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that "an exit from the crisis should be found in a democratic way, that is, on the basis of observing the law and not under external or internal pressure based on political passions," the Kremlin press service said in a statement.
Schroeder and Putin also discussed the possibility of new elections in Ukraine and agreed that any results should be "strictly respected," according to the German leader's office.
Russia considers the energy-dependent Ukraine part of its sphere of influence and a buffer with NATO (news - web sites)'s eastern flank and the political crisis has deepened the political tug-of-war between Moscow and the West.
Yushchenko's campaign chief, Oleksandr Zinchenko, announced Tuesday that the opposition candidate was breaking off talks with Yanukovych. The talks began last week under the mediation of European Union (news - web sites) foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski.
Solana is set to arrive in Kiev Tuesday night for another round of talks and is to be joined Wednesday by Kwasniewski. The two planned to meet with the rival candidates on Wednesday, the European Commission (news - web sites)'s Kiev office said. It was not clear if the opposition announcement would affect Wednesday's meeting.
Zinchenko's comments came after pro-government lawmakers blocked an opposition attempt for a no-confidence vote in Yanukovych's Cabinet due to the emergence of separatist threats in the nation. Only 196 of the 410 lawmakers present supported the measure, however, less than the 226 votes needed.
Legislators later tentatively approved a resolution that would cancel Saturday's nonbinding decision to declare the election results invalid, prompting demonstrators massed outside to try to storm the session.
Protesters — some crawling on top of each other's shoulders — got as far as the lobby of the building before police pushed them back. Yushchenko also addressed the demonstrators in an effort to calm tensions.
Parliamentary Speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn adjourned the session until Wednesday and said the nonbinding decision would not be rescinded.
In an apparent bid to compromise, Yanukovych said that if he becomes president, he will offer Yushchenko the post of "first person," or the prime minister's job.
Yushchenko quickly brushed off the offer, saying he wants to focus on the vote fraud.
"The election was rigged," he said. "People are asking whether this country has a political elite capable of upholding a fair vote."

Yanukovych also has said that he would support a revote if allegations of fraud are proven — but that he had yet to see such proof. On Tuesday, he even suggested he could withdraw from the race — if his rival did.
"We need to overcome the crisis and for the sake of this I propose that neither Viktor Andriyovych Yushchenko nor I participate in the (new) election if the result of the vote will be declared falsified," Yanukovych said, according to Interfax.
Threats to Ukraine's unity, meanwhile, seemed to dissipate after the eastern Donetsk region said it would not hold its referendum on self-rule as planned Sunday amid sharp criticism from lawmakers and potential legal action to protect the nation's territorial integrity. The Kharkiv regional legislature also retracted its threat to introduce self-rule.
Donetsk Governor Anatoliy Bliznyuk — whose region is Yanukovych's home base — said his region was seeking "not autonomy, but to become a republic within Ukraine." He said the referendum would be held within the next two months.
The Supreme Court began hearing the opposition appeal on Monday, but officials have said a decision could take several days. Under Ukrainian legislation, the court cannot rule on the overall results but can declare results invalid in individual precincts.
The appeal focuses on results from eight eastern and southern regions — more than 15 million votes, almost half of the total cast in the runoff.
Yushchenko's lawyers on Tuesday cited turnout of above 100 percent in hundreds of precincts in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions, problems with voting lists and multiple voting with absentee ballots.
The opposition also asked the court to annul the vote and name Yushchenko the winner based on his winning a narrow plurality of the votes in the first round on Oct. 31.
Yushchenko, whose stronghold was western Ukraine, a traditional center of nationalism, says he wants to push the country to greater integration with Western Europe, and he has suggested he would seek NATO membership.
Yanukovych drew his support from Ukraine's pro-Russian, heavily industrialized eastern half and was expected to pursue closer ties with Moscow.

SENT NOV. 30, 2004, or DAY 9 of OR

2005-11-27T20:00:00.000-08:00

UKRAINE'S ORANGE REVOLUTION

Note: At this point during the OR, I had not written to my list-serve in about 5 days, as I had been traveling about, looking in on OR events in various parts of Western Ukraine, and was hoping to get to Kyiv. I was back in Ternopil for a day, then headed to Ivano-Frankivsk, and then was off to Lviv, after which I planned to go to Kyiv, making a stop along the way.

I had really wanted to document what was happening in the rest of the country; that is, I had come to feel that OR events from around the country were not getting the credit nor attention that they deserved, and I was planning after the weekend to nonetheless head to Kyiv. Well, I did make it to Zhytomyr when I got really sick, and so I hurried back to Pidhajtsi where I laid in bed for two or three days with flu. So I did not get to Kyiv until the end of the OR, which is something that I regret in soo many ways. However, once there I saw and experienced enough of the real thing, and b-t-w, I did end up spending some nights in the tent camp later on, during the weeks from the end of the mass demonstrations to Yushchenko's inauguration. Thus I focused some of my writing to my list-serve and the articles I tried to publish on what was happening outside of Kyiv, while also reporting on the major events in the capital. The Orange Revolution did not happen only in Kyiv, but in towns and cities and villages all throughout Ukraine. I have been, and will continue to be, posting photos of OR events in locales outside of Kyiv on my main blog here. . .

Now to what I wrote from Pidhajtsi on this day a year ago after I had started feeling a bit better:

Things have been really shaken up in Ukraine since I have last been able to write to you all. Below is an article I have prepared once again to send to newspapers, followed by a round-up of news. There is a lot of news from today that I just don't have time to write about, but today has been a big day in Ukraine, with protestors trying to storm into the parliament. Read more below. (And oh, I have become more patient with Jushchenko's tactics, if not whole-heartedly embracing what he's trying to do. . .see more below):

Ukraine’s Orange Revolution:

It’s being called an Orange Revolution. In towns and cities throughout Ukraine, millions of people are wearing orange—scarves and hats, jackets and sweaters, arm and headbands, socks and mittens. Cars have orange ribbons tied to their antennas. Over the central Independence Square in the capital city of Kyiv an orange flag flies under the blue-and-yellow national flag. Orange represents forces allied with Viktor Jushchenko, the banker and economist cum presidential hopeful cum leader of a national uprising against corruption and oligarchic rule that began November 21.

A second round of presidential elections occurred on November 21 that like the first round, has been widely condemned as unfair by both the OSCE and US, both of which had previously declared the campaign season leading up to the elections as rife with violations of protocols of free and fair election campaigns. Nonetheless, authorities in Ukraine are proving desperate to steal the election for Viktor Janukovych. Janukovych is the best guarantee for the survival of their regime of corrupt oligarchs with a stranglehold on Ukraine’s government and economy that has, throughout the past 13 years of independence, kept most people in this resource-rich nation of 48 million people hovering in poverty.

Our Ukraine, the party of Viktor Jushchenko, has compiled a list of 11,000 election-day violations. However as a national uprising is taking place, the issue of the legitimacy of the election has become beside the point. The actions of authorities, not only today but throughout the past thirteen years, have pushed the clear majority in Ukraine to demand one thing today: from streets throughout the country, millions of people wearing orange are shouting “Jushchenko is President!” The real question today concerns the legitimacy of the ruling oligarchy itself.

Jushchenko promises to reform Ukraine’s economy and to initiate wide-ranging social programs to help the people of this nation rise out of poverty. He promises to reform Ukraine’s unequal power structure and to redistribute Ukraine’s wealth, while at the same time he promises cultural sensitivity and to work towards a civic and plural sense of Ukrainian identity, which means inculcating a sense of civic nationalism that includes all of Ukraine’s diverse peoples and languages. Viktor Janukovych, while challenging Jushchenko’s claims to being a populist with little more than name-calling and highly contestable assertions about Ukraine’s economic progress while he has been prime minister, has mostly attempted to split Russian from Ukrainian voters by playing on ethnic Russian fears about the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and of Ukraine drifting out of reach of Russian influence. Janukovych’s brand of populism is divide and rule.

Authorities are trying to save themselves by posing as the legitimate power, obedient to and guarantor of the law, while claiming that Viktor Jushchenko, along with the two other main leaders of the opposition, Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz and Julija Tymoshenko, leader of a parliamentary opposition bloc named after her, is attempting a coup. This is the view of the situation in Ukraine promoted by the Kremlin, but few others buy it—especially not in Ukraine, where a shadow government and society has begun to form. Already, numerous cities have passed resolutions rejecting the legitimacy of the elections and declaring loyalty to Jushchenko, and demonstrators in other cities, such as Chernihiv, have gathered in front of city and state government buildings to demand adoption of similar resolutions. Also, activists in the city of Kirovohrad held a public trial for the city and state officials that participated in the falsification of the election, while in towns large and small crowds are gathering before state administration buildings to demand that officials come out and explain themselves.

In the capital Kyiv, where an estimated 1 million have arrived from all over the country, a support network for those coming from afar has been established. Kyivans are opening their homes to demonstrators, while various groups and organizations have erected food and first-aid tents throughout the city. A general fund has been established to which people throughout the country and the Ukrainian diaspora abroad have been donating to help pay costs of getting people to the capital and for their support while they are there. A new flag has appeared at pro-Jushchenko rallies throughout the country as well, one displaying the word “Solidarity” written in orange letters on a white background.

In reaction to this building pressure, authorities last week first attempted to lure Jushchenko into a compromise. Janukovych appeared twice on TV to state his “willingness” to compromise with the opposition, but there were rumors that authorities were willing only to negotiate on a power-sharing government with Janukovych as President and Jushchenko as PM. The opposition repeatedly stated in response that it would negotiate only a turn over of power to the man who most consider already to have won the election. It seemed that at this point, authorities had only two options left: either the hope that the energy of demonstrations would dissipate, leaving Jushchenko and the opposition in a weakened position whereby they would have to accept authorities’ overtures for a power-sharing government; or the use of violence in an attempt to outright suppress the ongoing national uprising.

However, as the weekend began, it became apparent that energy was not dissipating. On Thursday a caravan of twenty or more cars and two buses was seen leaving the west Ukrainian city of Ternopil with signs proclaiming “To Kyiv for Ukraine!” The movement toward the capital continued so that by Saturday night, it was reported that more people had packed onto Kyiv’s central Independence Square than before, topping 200,000 while numbers of people throughout the city continued to grow. In this context, Moroz and Tymoshenko, the more radical of the opposition’s guiding triumvirate, stepped up their calls for radical action with the suggestion that the opposition may begin to erect barricades to seize control of all roads and rails to and from the capital.

By Friday however, both the government and Jushchenko had become more open to negotiation for a compromise. First of all, ongoing standoffs between pro-Jushchenko supporters and special police units—who are suspected to have been flown in from Russia, as police units throughout Ukraine have been declaring their loyalty to the Orange Revolution—almost broke into open confrontation in a number of cities across Ukraine on Friday. In the city of Chernihiv, police struck demonstrators with truncheons and fired shots into the air as demonstrators attempted to storm state buildings. The threat of escalating violence was becoming a reality, making Jushchenko concerned to prevent bloodshed. On the side of authorities, the increasing pressure from the streets and the fact that numerous European heads of state arrived to urge Kuchma to cooperate with the opposition had by Friday forced authorities to negotiate more than just a power-showering government. The result was the start of negotiations on Friday for a third election with guarantees of equal access to the media and total fairness.

Ukrainian authorities are proving more stubborn than authorities were last year in the Republic of Georgia. In fact, the closest precedent for the behavior of Ukrainian authorities at this point is that of Nicholae Ceaucescu’s stubborn hold on power that led to widespread bloodshed in Romania in 1989. Jushchenko seems very eager to prevent this from happening, while still pushing for the government’s capitulation to his eventually becoming president. Over the weekend and into Monday, things have been shaken up in Ukraine’s government. At first, the Janukovych camp seemed emboldened by Jushchenko’s sitting at the negotiating table, taking it as a sign of weakness. Parliament was more full with pro-Janukovych deputies than it has been since November 21. Then Janukovych's home state of Donetsk declared its desire for a state-wide referendum on autonomy, while the state of Kharkiv outirght declared its autonomy and refusal to pay taxes to the government, in actions rumored to have been supported if not secretly ordered by Kuchma.

However on Saturday the parliament nonetheless passed a resolution denouncing the elections and declaring the start of negotiations on political reform. None of this is binding without Kuchma's signature, who in a shocking declaration Monday announced that the election was indeed falsified. Also Monday the fall out over the Kharkiv and Donetsk declarations was great. Serhij Tyhypko, head of Janukovych's campaign resigned from both that position as well as his position as National Bank chief. Volodymyr Lytvyn, the speaker of parliament who supported Janukovych in the election, denounced the seperatist moves and the fact that the prime minister, Viktor Janukovych, supports them. Janukovych is fast loosing support: he was caught stating while he thought he was off-camera that as president, "I will deport all western Ukrainians on foot to Siberia." In reaction to this, former President Leonid Kravchuk, a staunch Janukovych supporter until yesterday, said that "we don't need another Josip Visarionovych," refering to Joseph Stalin, who allegedly had desired to deport all Ukrainians to Siberia.

Thus it appears that so far, Jushchenko's tactics are working. Jushchenko addressed his supporters from Kyiv's Independence Square on Monday night, stating that although Janukovych and Kuchma are still dragging their feet in the negotiations, they had been deeply shaken over the weekend. Jushchenko urged further restraint: "We are winning," he said, especially since the parliament was to begin debate Tuesday on a vote of no confidence in the government of Viktor Jushchenko.

However, on Tuesday as the parlaiment failed to begin debate on the no-confidence vote, pro-Jushchenko supporters broke through gates and attempted to storm the parliamentary chamber. Jushchenko has been reluctant to outright endorse such actions, but has repeatedly stated that if authorities fail to make real progress toward meeting opposition demands, the opposition will have to resort to more radical action. This reflects the desire of fellow opposition leader Julija Tymoshenko, who has frequently addressed the crowds in Kyiv stating that although she backs Jushchenko's attempts at negotiations, she does not trust authorities and believes that the time will come when radical action may be necessary. "Be ready, and be on your guard," she said to opposition supporters, refering to the increasing likelihood that authorities may start provocations to provide the excuse for a crackdown. Thus both Jushchenko and Tymoshenko have asked people to remain in Kyiv and be patient for now. Furthermore, Jushchenko has said that, “any conflict begun in the streets must be resolved in negotiations with authorities.” Only time will tell which one of their tactics will take precedent—but no doubt, the Orange Revolution is for the moment benefiting from them the leadership of both personalities.

Thus, against all stereotypes of an East-West divide and disunity between Russian and Ukrainian speaking voters, the vast majority of Ukrainians are proving more united in their fight against a corrupt regime of ruling oligarchs than anyone would have expected. Certainly the authorities never imagined they would face such widespread and unified rebellion, especially as they have worked hard with a high degree of success to keep the East-West divide alive and Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers alienated from each other these past thirteen years. In actual fact, however, Janukovych did not perform as well as authorities expected during the election in those parts of the country considered his stronghold, where significant minorities support Jushchenko. Thus while support for Jushchenko in generally pro-Janukovych regions is significant, support for Janukovych in pro-Jushchenko regions is negligible. The simple fact of the matter is that somewhere between at least 60% but very possibly up to 75% of Ukrainians want Jushchenko as President, and they want to see, as Jushchenko has said again and again during the campaign season, that “Bandits (i.e., the oligarchs) will sit in jail.”

NEWS BLURBS that I have been compiling since last Thursday, and I don't have much from today written yet, but there is a ton to write about from just today, let alone since last Th.:

Oleksandr Moroz, speaking in parliament Tuesday, said, “Isn’t it obvious that falsification took place? The government is sick, its gangrenous, and there is nothing left to do other than cut it off.” The parliament today is to debate a no-confidence vote in the government of Prime Minister Viktor Janukovych over the matter of the use of administrative resources on his behalf and the role of his government in falsifying the vote.

Kuchma on Monday admitted that the elections were falsified, but said that his government had nothing to do with it.

One of Janukovych’s spokespeople declared that while no "administrative resources" were used on Janukovych's behalf, many were used in western Ukraine.

On Thursday, there was a standoff in Ternopil when word spread that the road to Kyiv was blockaded. A crowd marched to the state administration buildings to demand an explanation.

Thursday night there was a large mass held on Ternnopil’s central Theater Square, cite of the week’s demonstrations, to cater to the spiritual needs of people in struggle.

On Friday, the highway between Kyiv and the town just outside the capital where Viktor Jushchenko has been spending the nights was blocked by a semi-trailor that was deliberately parked crossing the highway.

In the state parliament in Donetsk, deputies discussed declaring Donetsk an autonomous republic.

In Dnipropetrovsk on Friday were reports of a tense standoff between pro-Janukovych and pro-Jushchenko supporters.

In a village outside of Kyiv, Jushchenko supporters blocked the passage of a train full of Janukovych supporters on its way to the capital. The media arrived and showed interesting scenes of tense confrontations between camps.

Nonetheless on Friday, a pro-Janukovyh rally started outside of Kyiv's Central Train Station. About 5-7,000 Janukovych supporters, mostly men and mostly miners from the Donbas (the states of Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk), Janukovych’s heartland have gathered in front of the central train station in Kyiv (interesting to note that Janukovych has had to rely so heavily on people from Donbas, while Jushchenko is drawing huge masses of supporters from all over Ukraine). Janukovych addressed the crowd, and in his usually crude manner, called Jushchenko a trypach (one who says a lot, does a little, but in a term that I have been told is rather crude-sounding) who was trying to fool “my people,” Janukovych said, and who was fomenting disorder for the sake of his own power. He also called Jushchenko some other nasty names.

Also, Viktor Janukovych has been caught saying while he thought cameras were off that as President, he’d deport on foot all western Ukrainians to Siberia.

Reports on Friday of provocations: at the standoff in front of buildings of the presidential administration there apparently were men shouting to demonstrators, “Hey guys, come on, forget all this—we’ve got lots of vodka, let’s go get drunk. . .” Sounds kind of funny, but this is real. Never underestimate east Slavic love for vodka. . .

Officials are suspected of burning incriminating documents—special police outside of presidential administration buildings seen carrying out boxes of documents and burning them.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine had previously declared that no one can declare a winner in the presidential election until it has made its own judgment on the fairness and legitimacy of the election. However, the government’s newspaper (i.e., the newspaper of the presidential administration, The Government Courier) had intended to declare Janukovych winner, and had printed its papers for distribution. They were prevented from doing so by Jushchenko supporters who broke-in to their press and seized the papers.

An army officer in Ternopil made a declaration, “We took an oath to defend the
people, and that’s what we will do,” implying sympathy for the Orange Revolution.

Russian special police (Spets-nas) are suspected in Uzhhorod. There has been a tense standoff in front of state administration buildings, and one person there declared, “This is foreign occupation.”

There are reports of police using fire hoses on demonstrators in city of Sumy.

Reports of 100 police heading to L’viv on Friday to support and protect pro-Jushchenko demonstrators.

Friday, President Leonid Kuchma was visited by EU’s Javier Solana, Poland’s Kwasniewski, and the Lithuanian President (who’s name I forgot). Also, Lech Walesa is in Ukraine to be a mediator between the opposition (proJu forces) and the governmen (proJa forces)t.

Polish students wearing orange are demonstrating in solidarity with the Ukrainian movement. And I have seen plenty of Polish students at demonstrations already, especially in Lviv and Ternopil.

Janukovych’s campaign office claims to be telling its people to stay off the streets in general with the notion that they are legitimate and don’t need to resort to street tactics—most likely this is a propagandistic attempt to explain to pro-Janukovych supporters why Jushchenko has so many and Janukovych so few in the capital.

Also Friday, two members of the Central Electoral Commission announced that they rescind their signatures certifying results of the election. Rumors are spreading in grassroots information channels that the head of the CEC was slightly beaten and otherwise threatened that he must cooperate and declare the election for Janukovych.

Saturday: students from the Kyiv Music Conservatory spent the afternoon “entertaining” the special police guarding the buildings of the presidential administration with Ukrainian traditional and pop songs. Said one student, “We just wanted to raise their spirits.”

It was reported that on Saturday night, more people than ever had packed onto Independence Square.

Saturday night cadets of the police academy came to the Independence Square to announce their support for the Orange Revolution and the Ukrainian people despite threats that they would be expelled if they did so. The crowd of 200,000 or more responded by chanting “Molodtsi! Molodtsi!” a difficult to translate phrase; its kind of like saying to someone “At-a-Boy!” or “Job Well Done!” Ukrainians and Russians say it all the time as a compliment (Molodtsi is plural, Molodets is the singular).

Following the students, a police captain also made a similar declaration, and the crown chanted “Molodets! Molodets!”

And then the pinnacle of police anti-government protests occurred on Sunday night. The Major-General of all of Ukraine’s police forces appeared on Independence Square and declared that “the police are with the people,” and expressed his joy that finally, “the time has come that we can say ‘No’ to this regime.” He also announced the establishment of a hotline to which people could call-in any suspicious activity by authorities, especially as regarding possible provocations. And he ended by starting up a chant, “Militsija za Narodu (Police are for the People)!” which was picked up by the crowd that had boisterously been applauding his announcement.

A New Propaganda Campaign: on Inter, one of Ukraine’s nationwide TV channels, they are showing screens with the slogans “We Have Understood One Another,” “We are All Fellow Citizens,” etc., all written in orange and blue-and-white letters (the colors of Jushchenko and Janukovych respectively) while showing, interspersed, photos of Jushchenko and Janukovych, and pro-Jushchenko and pro-Janukovych rallies. Also, in its reporting of the daily news, Inter has been portraying the ongoing pro-Janukovych rally outside the train station in Kyiv as though it were the same in seize as the pro-Jushchenko rally on Independence Square through mostly close-up camera shots that make the rally of 5,000 look the equal of a rally of 150,000 and more.

Here’s a run-down of the all-Ukrainian channels (channels broadcast throughout Ukraine; for each major town has its own channels as well):
1) 1+1 = State television
2) Pershyj Natsionalnyj (First National) = State TV, but completely under influence of an oligarch
3) Inter = which is owned, most people say, by Viktor Medvedchuk, an oligarch and politician, head of the presidential administration
4) ICTV = Viktor Pinchuk, oligarch and also, son-in-law of President Kuchma
5) Novyj Kannel (New Channel) = neutral?
6) STB (not sure what the letters stand for) = oligarchic channel

And then there is the opposition Channel 5 which is broadcast in a few regions of Western Ukraine and which is otherwise available only via satellite. Just as in the US, independent, opposition channels have the problem of money and of the oligarchy’s stranglehold on licensing and broadcasting at the national level. Since the start of the Orange Revolution, the local Ternopil Channel 4 has been transmitting Channel 5’s coverage of events, and we can get Channel 4 in Pidhajtsi.

One of Channel 5’s main anchorman likes to sign off with the phrase, “Kokhajtysja! (Love each other!)” which is a much more sincere statement, when contrasted with Inter’s “We understand each other.” The three main anchormen on Channel 5 are refugees from State TV 1+1, and one can tell they are thrilled to be speaking the truth, such as, “No matter—the word travels faster than the image.”

Viktor Jushchenko, while addressing the crowd of supporters Friday night to inform them of the start of dialogue with authorities, said that Viktor Janukovych had proposed that he would remove “his people from Kyiv,” if Jushchenko promised to remove his, to which Jushchenko said he replied, “Viktor Fedorovych, you only have 5,000 people here.” (Janukovych’s full name is Viktor Fedorovych Janukovych, while he is Viktor Andrijevych Jushchenko).

Natalija Vitrenko, leader of the so-called Progressive Socialist Part of Ukraine that is closely allied with the Communist Party has made an interesting comment. When asked, “To your mind, how will the problem of unemployment in [western] Ukraine be solved?” she answered, “By dressing people, putting shoes on them, feeding them, and off to Chechnya with them.”

Is the State TV Channel 1+1 turning against the government? Watching Ternopil Channel 4, which has been transmitting on its channel coverage of events in Ukraine from the opposition Channel 5, I saw on Friday evening a speaker addressing the crowd of 150,000 or more on the central Independence Square in Kyiv, who claimed that journalists and directors at the state television channel promised to report only the truth from now on. If so, in light of the new disinformation campaign of the channel Inter outlined above, this would be a highly significant moment. Channel 1+1, like the other oligarch owned channels, is an all-Ukrainian channel, reaching nearly every household. During the anti-Soviet rebellion of the Baltic Republics in 1991, bloodshed broke out in Vilnius when the anti-Soviet opposition seized control of the State media and Soviet paraptroopers attacked, killing 14. A crucial turning point in the revolution that led to the collapse of the Slobodan Milosevic regime in the rump-Yugoslavia came when state television went off the air to return to airwaves with anti-Milosevic messages. And a similar moment was crucial in the Rose Revolution in the Republic of Georgia last year. Will the state Channel 1+1 turn against Kuchma, Janukovych, the bandit government of oligarchs and join forces with the Orange Revolution?

Why November in Eastern Europe? The Berlin Wall fell in early November, the Communist regime in Czechoslovakia collapsed in November, Georgia’s Rose Revolution happened in November. . .does it have something to do with Scorpio energies afoot?

Julija Tymoshenko, addressing Sunday night the crowd on Kyiv’s Independence Square stated that rumors are that Janukovych has complained to Kuchma about the negotiations. Thus she said, “We need to stay on guard,” and said that if the authorities do not cooperate, the opposition needs to erect barricades, seize control of road and rails to and from capital, and raise hell!

On Saturday, in Moscow, fifteen people were seen walking around the Ukrainian Embassy, eating oranges and drinking Fanta.

And finally, Ukraine is suffering from a serious lack of orange material, and oranges are nowhere to be bought in the country today. Therefore, the EU—where a number of national parliaments have members displaying oranges on their desks and wearing orange in a display of solidarity with the Ukrainian movement—has begun organizing shipments of oranges and orange-colored items to Ukraine. A convoy suspected to be carrying such products has been seen crossing from Germany to Poland earlier today on its way to Ukraine, and already one semi-truck full of oranges and other orange items has been stopped at the border and harassed by border guards eager to obtain orange materials for themselves and their family.

OK, I’m just kidding, most of this isn’t true, all except for the display of solidarity in Germany’s parliament, and the fact that there reall is, not surprisingly, a shortage now of orange shirts, sweaters, hats, scarves, even tape in Ukraine, while what remains is of course much overpriced. I should like to be wearing an orange scarf about, but you snooze you loose. But there are oranges still available in Ukraine: today pro-Jushchenko deputies arrived early to the parliament and placed oranges on the desks of pro-Janukovych deputies, many of whom threw their oranges at the pro-Jushchenko deputies as they arrived.

SENT NOV. 25, 2004, or DAY 4 of the OR

2005-11-26T13:08:00.000-08:00

ITS GOT A NAME: THE ORANGE REVOLUTION

Greetings Friends,

Headlines of many newspapers in Ukraine today read: ORANZHEVA REVOLUTSIJA (ORANGE REVOLUTION)! Thus events in Ukraine now have a name, and what is being born out of this revolution, out of this turning of the wheel, is the chore of a new Ukrainian civic nation.

That is, despite what far too many western journalists continue to write today (such as an article from Reuters on the Yahoo website just now), Ukraine is not that divided of a nation. The major division obtaining today is between the people and the illegitimate leadership, between the majority and a leadership with a weak and dwindling base of power in society. In truth, at least 60% if not more actually voted for Jushchenko; and more importantly, more and more are switching sides, joining the revolt. Witness, as I reported yesterday, the demonstrations that began for Janukovych in areas traditionally thought to be in his camp that by end of the day had become pro-Jushchenko rallies (such as in Cherkassy). And witness the fact that wherever there were pro-Janukovych demos, pro-Jushchenko rallies also took place. The authorities' power base is dwindling. What authorities are hoping is that the energy of the people will also dwindle. That is all they can hope for now--the only other method they have at hand is use of violence.

With that, as the crisis of legitimate authority deepens in Ukraine, there are signs emerging today of a parallel society taking shape. That is, much like the oligarch's illegitimate domination of the economy this past thirteen years has forced upon Ukrainians the choice of building their own shadow economy, it appears that today the continuing, illegitimate rule of authorities is triggering the formation of a shadow society of sorts that recognizes Jushchenko as President. Recall what I reported yesterday about towns refusing to recognize the elections as legitimate; add to it Jushchenko's symbolic taking of the presidential oath. Also add to it today the rumor that many towns are publically declaring Jushchenko their president. Also, activists in the city of Kirovohrad planned to hold a symbolic trial in absentia of those officials of the Kirovohrad state administration who are accused of participating in falsification of the vote. In Uzhhorod today, 16,000 protestors stood in front of state administration buildings, demanding that officials come and face the people. Ukrainians are waiting for the illegitimate authorities to step out of the way so that the society they are starting to build without them can step into the light with Jushchenko as President.

Would this constitute a coup de etat, as the authorities claim? No. Coups occur from the top down in total disregard of popular opinion. When one leader is removed and another is swept into power on the wings of a popular uprising, that is called a revolution. And revolutions occur when governments have failed to meet the needs of the majority of people, who then withdraw their support of the government. And this is precisely what is happening in Ukraine at the moment.

However, although things look very hopeful, the end and ultimate success is not yet in sight.

Events on the gournd in Ukraine are proving however, that there is indeed, at long last, a nascent civil society in Ukraine, and with that, that there is a civic sense of Ukrainianness that unites all of Ukraine's diverse cultures and peoples. It is up to the illegitimate authorities to decide whether there will be violence perpetrated against the will of this civic nation waiting to be fully born. And they should think carefully: is the support of maybe 1/3 or a little more of the population enough to support them through a crack-down?

But also--and this is very important--Jushchenko needs to see and hear from his supporters, the clear majority of the population of this country, that they are willing to stand with him through to the end. That is, with authorities still posing as legitimate rulers (with of course only the CIS recognizing them now), Janukovych has made statements that he is "willing to cooperate and negotiate with the opposition," and rumors are floating of offers being made by authorities to Jushchenko and the opposition leaders that a compromise government be established with Janukovych as president and Jushchenko as PM--in essence, they are tempting Jushchenko into betraying revolution and fundamental change for compromise and simple reform. Jushchenko has today firmly rejected all such offers; it is clear that most people on the streets will only accept a handover of power to Jushchenko. To my mind, Jushchenko is clearly a man with the strength of character to not capitulate to any such tactics. But what he needs now more than ever is a display of the willingness to keep on fighting, a further display of the true and genuine strength of the Ukrainian people .

And this he is getting. The energy is not dieing down; recall what I have already written about Kirovohrad and Uzhhorod. And right now I am back in Ternopil, where things continue to simmer. There is now a stage set-up on the central Theater Square, and there are entertainers. The crowd remains huge. Students and PORA! activists have pitched tents and are staying the night. And upon arrival in town today, I saw a huge caravan of taxis and buses flying Ukrainian and Orange flags heading out of town, the lead car and many others displaying signs "DO KYJEVA ZA UKRAJINU (TO KYIV FOR UKRAINE)!" This is precisely what Jushchenko and those in the capital need: reenforcements. I have been busy encouraging young people in Pidhajtsi to either go to Kyiv or Lviv. [note: what I meant was, some of us had been traveling to other villages in the Pidhajtsi county, telling people that those in Kyiv already need to come back home for a rest, but that they would not come back unless they knew that others were on the way to replace them. We also told people that we could give them 100 UAH or $20, a third of an average month's wage, for the trip, and that once there, our people from Pidhajtsi were already organized and would find them a place to stay and food to eat. I finally made it to Kyiv toward the end of the street demos.] I plan myself to head with a bunch of people this weekend to Lviv, possibly on to Kyiv thereafter. The movement is continuing, and energy is not being lost--especially not as we head into the weekend.

This weekend, my gut tells me, will prove critical.

So, now some news:

In Kyiv, thousands demonstrated in front of the Russian Embassy to demand the removal of Russia special police from the capital.

Also in Kyiv, about 1,000 Janukovych supporters demonstrated in front of the parlaiment today, while Jushchenko demonstrators also stood on the streets and Jushchenko supporters drove in cars, circling around the parlaiment building.

Also, I forgot to mention before, over 150 tents have been set up on the central Independence Square, and people have been staying the night, despite the cold and the snow.

More buses are reported to be arriving in the capital, Kyiv, from Donetsk, full of men (which means that they are most likely coming as provocateurs).

Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party and Julija Tymoshenko of what is called the Julija Tymoshenko Bloc, who along with Jushchenko form a kind of triumvirate guiding the opposition, began talking today about the opposition seizing control and power in Kyiv by blockading and controlling roads and rails to and fro the capital. This is a huge threat to the power of authorities, and if it is to happen, will be very provocative. Such actions--the building of barricades, seizing control of the means of transportation, are major moments in the history of every major revolution. There is also talk of storming the state TV--not from Moroz or Tymoshenko, but in the general ether. All of this could seriously provoke the illegitimate authorities.

I forgot also to mention that yesterday, Jushchenko, Moroz, Tymoshenk and other leaders of the opposition met with Interior Ministry officials in Kyiv, officials who allegedly gave promises that they would refuse to obey orders to open fire on demonstrators if such an order were to come from President Kuchma.

Janukovych today repeated his call to open dialogue between the opposition and the illegitimate authorities.

Both the US and the EU declared today that they do not recognize the election.

Russian deputies warn the US and EU not to meddle with Ukraine.

Kuchma still has not ceritified the results of the election--the last step in declaring Janukovych (the illegitimate) President. What is he waiting for? What is he afraid of? Perhaps he's hoping that the revolution taking place isn't real. Maybe he thinks he's asleep and all of this is a bad dream. But seriously, authorities greatest hope at the moment is that things will quiet down--and no doubt, Kuchma's giving a final OK at the moment will bring things to a boil.

Then today, I was listening to an independent Ukrainian radio station [Radio Era] that had someone on who was talking about all the violations in the town of Donetsk. A caller from Kyiv phoned in to say, in perfect Ukrainian, that he was from Donetsk, and that he has many friends there who speak Ukrainian and voted for Jushchenko and that he himself voted for Jushchenko and that he couldn't understand why the speaker was saying such terrible things about Donetsk. The speaker repsonded with saying in general, "Sir, I am not saying that no one in Donetsk is for Jushchenko--on the contrary, I am saying that your voices there are not being heard! We're talking about the massive falsification of the vote there, and you confirm for me that there are voices in Donetsk that are not being heard!"

Also, this radio station today is periodically giving instructions on how to stay warm, on signs of hypothermia, and is also reporting on the need for solidarity and mutual support.

Also, I saw a new flag today flying over heads in Ternopil: it was a white flag with the SOLIDARITY written across it in orange.

With that, I want to say there is nothing like the feelings of hope and inspiration that comes of millions of people working together to fight for a better future.

Peace and Love,
Stefan

SENT NOV. 24, 2004, or DAY 3 of OR

2005-11-26T07:10:00.000-08:00

WHO'S LEADING A CIRCUS IN UKRAINE?:

Greetings Friends,

The fall out over Viktor Jushchenko's taking a symbolic presidental oath yesterday has been tremendous. Already yesterday and immediately after the oath was made, the speaker of the parlaiment, Volodymyr Lytvyn commented that Jushchenko is only discrediting himself by taking such actions, and all day long various figures supporting Janukovych have echoed this claim. Furthermore, Putin in a statement today said that Ukraine is a state of law, implying that Jushchenko's actions are illegitimate (while taking the supposedly legitimate action of sending Russian special police to guard the offices of the presidential administation in Kyiv). And finally, this evening during debate at the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) over the final certification of the the results of the election, a Janukovych supporter stated that the opposition is leading a circus on the streets of Kyiv and throughout Ukraine.

It is no surprise that Janukovych was certified this evening as the Ring Leader of the real circus happening in Ukraine today (i.e., the CEC did certify tonight its declaration yesterday that Janukovych won). Who looks more ridiculous, the millions on streets throughout Ukraine demonstrating for Jushchenko, or the men in suits sitting inside buildings guarded by Russian special police flown in this morning for their and Kuchma's "protection?"

And who looks more ridiculous than the filthy rich oligarchs and politicians that backed Janukovych whose applications for visas to the US are "under review" (an anonymous source has let it out that these mens' applications most likely will not gain approval, and that furthermore, the White House is considering seizing all their money in US banks, since the money was made illegitimately, and even some of it is money stolen from US taxpayers, as it was money given to Ukraine as AID money through the IMF/World Bank.)

These are the figures whose respect for the law that they are suddenly trumpeting today has lead to millions of people mobilizing across the country to certify in the streets the fact that Jushchenko has already become their president. Jushchenko's oath was a pledge to his supporters that he will stay the course until the end, and in one comment yesterday, he declared, "Some don't like to see my face, but its the face of my nation" (a statement which has an additional sense for those who know about what is widely beleived as an attempt on his life via poisoning last September--he looks a lot worse today than he did before the incident). Jushchenko is not one among that sad line of ego-driven, megalomaniacal leaders of revolutions. Kyiv and most of Ukraine is covered today in orange. The cities of Lutsk, Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Khmelnytstkyj, Vynnytsja, and Kyiv have all passed resolutions rejecting the validity of Sunday's vote, and more of such resolutions are coming. Against all the most negative stereotypes in the West about Ukrainians, people here are proving with each passing moment that they are not a nation of thieves and bandits, nor of the politically apathetic; they are instead proving that they have been a battered nation whose time has finally come to rise and fight for its dignity. PORA (Now's the Time)!

And it is just fantastic that all of this is happening on the first anniversary of the Rose Revolution in the Republic of Georgia that uprooted the corrupt oligarchy of ex-Communist Party chiefs and Soviet bosses (Sheverdnadze stepped down last year on November 23).

But the Ukrainian officials are proving more stubborn--perhaps they are proving one stereotype about Ukrainians true. But so are the millions who are demonstrating against them.

With that, the situation is getting tense. I am once again back in Pidhajtsi, and I have heard all day long people asking whether if the shooting has begun. Nothing of the sort has happened yet, but there are all kinds of reports about this and that indication that provocation is about to begin. The authorities are rather openly mulling over using force to clear Kyiv. Bush has warned against this, and has strongly urged Putin to back off. The spectre of the Cold war seems to on the haunt, especially as the EU early-on just threw up its arms in disgust. Germany's Schroeder also made a statement today, rejecting the legitimacy of authorities' actions in Ukraine and urging Putin to keep his distance.

And then the soldiers, the damned police--Russian "special police" in Kyiv?!? And the authorities here claim that they believe "Ukraine is not Russia" (which is the title of a book published by Kuchma this summer)? If they fear that they can't rely on the Ukrainian police and soldiers to potect them, how can they claim to be the legitimate power in this country? And how else is one to read the situation, other than that Putin's
government is determined to keep the Ukrainian masses (whether Ukrainian, Russian, Jews, Romani, etc.) impoverished and pinned under the control of a corrupt oligarchy?

Ok, enough of the polemicizing. Here is a round-up of some news and rumors from today and last night, followed by photos:

In Kyiv, the flag pole in the center of the central Independence Square is flying a Ukrainian flag and below it, an Orange Flag.

A whopping 19 international observers were actually able to get into voting centers in the eastern state of Luhansk to do their jobs. Luhansk had 2,000 voting centers.

My uncle from Pidhajtsi led a group of observers to Donetsk. He had a video camera with him. He videotaped a man voting without a passport and voter-registration. My uncle protested against this violation. The response was that he and fellow observers were minorly assaulted, removed from the voting center, and the camera was broken. But at least the tape made it back to the OUR UKRAINE offices in Kyiv. Jushchenko has claimed to have, and OUR UKRAINE is preparing, a list of 11,000 violations.

Starting last night, thousands were outside the presidential administration protesting, which triggered the arrival of Russian special forces--especially after Kyiv Mayor Omelchenko switched sides and came out for Jushchenko. With that, it is uncertain that either the army or Kyivan police will help authorities. But they might. And all day today people remained at the administration buildings.

Oleksandr Moroz has claimed that there are upwards of 3 million already in the capital. This conflicts with Western reporting, which gives a much lower figure. I think that Moroz is exaggerating (although he in general is a very reliable fellow). No doubt the Western reports I have read have underestimated the number of people in the capital. Let's say there are 1 million, and more are coming (keep in mind, Kyiv itself is a city of 4 million).

A bus of 40 people left from Pidhajtsi today, heading for Kyiv. And there already are a significant number of fellows from Pidhajtsi in the capital, who went yesterday and the day before by bus and private car. Some of them report many stops by police along the way (I spoke with my third-cousin in Kyiv by cellphone yesterday. . .)

Yesterday and today in Pidhajtsi were huge demonstrations by small-town standards (at least 1,000, out of a pop of about 4,000 within the town itself; Pidhajtsi and connected villages altogether are about 7,000). Today the demo turned angry--people began naming those who had agitated for Janukovych. Yesterday there was a picket after the demo in front of the police station, demanding that those officers present who had turned over their right to vote in accord with the "budget-worker" scandal come outside and explain themselves. Then today, after the demo, a few headed to picket in front of the offices of the Janukovych campaign in Pidhajtsi.

Another bus left from Pidhajtsi for Kyiv after the demo, also after which people--pensioners, workers, business owners, etc.--simply came to the fellow organizing the buses to and fro the capital to give him money for to support the guys on the trip to Kyiv. Altogether they donated 3,000 hryvnjas, a huge sum in Ukraine (up to 10 months worth of wages for a good job, well over a years worth for those with less reliable work and those on pensions) . There was an emotional bon voyage. People said "Go Fight for Us," and sang the national anthem.

No doubt the same thing has happened elsewhere and will continue to. . .

Rumors floating about Kuchma possibly declarring a state of emergency.

Then a humurous anecdote that I got from a Ternopil newspaper: Apparently, there are gangs of Yanukovych supporters going around Kyiv slashing tires of the cars of Jushchenko supporters. Many Jushchenko supporters have tied orange ribbons to their car's antennas or sideview mirrors, etc. Well, apparently a man parked his car who then got out carrying a pro-Janukovych sign. Pro-Jushchenko folks tied an orange ribbon to his car, and later a gang of pro-Janukovych supporters slashed his tires. The fellow was later interviewed, and he said, "I don't mind what they did--what they are doing is right!"

And one more thing: the snow is falling hard in western and other parts of Ukraine. It is cold, the winds are blowing hard (or really were today), but the heat of the moment is keeping us warm and the mutual support of people in struggle is keeping spirits high. People are opening their homes in Kyiv to those coming from the provences, and the solidarity, the smiling, the mutual affection being shown. . .is simply fantastic. And people are celebrating. They're singing folksongs at night in the pubs, but also at the demonstrations, and also on the streets walking to and fro from demos. And no doubt a significant amount of wine, beer, and horylka is being consumed in many places, both to keep warm, but also to celebrate, and at least it is being consumed with an air of hopefulness, and not the desperation that has driven so many to drink in this country these past 13 years.

Please, everyone, keep in mind what is happening here, tell friends, write letters to papers, and call senators and representatives if you have the energy, and tell them that there is no question about the situation here. Tell them that Ukraine already has a new president, Viktor Jushchenko.

SENT NOV. 23, 2004, or DAY 2 of OR

2005-11-26T06:35:00.000-08:00

UKRAINE'S ROSE REVOLUTION IS WELL UNDERWAY:

This is being described as a national uprising. Here is what I have seen today, writing to you from the city of Ternopil, (pop approximately 250,000):

I arrived from Pidhajtsi at 12 PM. All along the way from Pidhajtsi to Ternopil one could see, on the streets of the various villages and in the bus stops throughout the countryside, people wearing orange arm bands, orange-colored jackets, hats, scarves, gloves. In one village, someone had painted the entire fence encircling their property orange. Once in Ternopil, I saw warms of people wearing orange. Orange is the color of Jushchenko's flag.

I started walking the short distance from the bus station to the town center, to Teatral'na Ploshcha (Theater Square), where people have been gathering, demonstrating, since last night. All along the road were people coming and going from the meeting, carrying Ukrainian flags, carrying PORA! flags, carrying signs and banners and the flags of the Jushchenko campaign, and the flag of Our Ukraine, his Party. People shouted, "Jushchenko!" at random; sometimes the shouts caught on and turned into the chants of the many: "JU-SHCHEN-KO PRE-SI-DENT!" Groups of students with PORA! and TAK! banners around their arms where walking to and fro the center, singing new lyrics to folk songs, all chiding Janukovych. Some of them chanted: "Ju-shcen-ko Pre-si-dent, Ja-nu-ko-vych IM-PO-TENT!"

In the center, on Theater Square, is a constant presence of at least 5-10,000 [I amend this figure; most people after the OR told me that the size of the crowd was more like 20,000 daily, and looking at my video footage and photos again, I agree. . .], with people constantly coming and going. They were here yesterday. They came back at 9AM, while many diehards stayed the night. And every side street to and fro the center is crawling with more people in orange. No doubt, Ternopil is not the only city having demos. In fact, I have seen on the opposition news channel 5 a map indicating where demos are happening in major cities. Every major city in Ukraine has a demo happening. Only three of them are having major, pro-Janukovych demonstrations: Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and of course in Sevastapol and Simferopol. But in each are taking place pro-Juschenko rallies, albeit smaller (there are also counter, pro-Janukovych rallies happening in many cities where the majority is for Jushchenko). And there are townhall meetings and demos happening in smaller towns and villages everywhere.

Kyiv is overrun with Jushchenko demonstrators. The cenral, Independence Square is full (but its been full now since Sunday night), but people keep arriving. Every major boulevard heading into the center is crowded. Khreshchatyk is overrun, Hrushevs'kyj Street is overrun, etc. And most importantly of all, the building of the Verkhovna Rada or National Parlaiment is nearly completely surrounded by people who are shouting "Jushcenko President!"

Inside the parlaiment are deputies who are trying to pass a resolution nullifying the vote. For the most part, only opposition deputies are present. The speaker of the parlaiment, ??? Lytvyn is presiding and is overall cooperating. Lytvyn is widely considered a slippery character who slides along the political spectrum in Ukraine depending on where the power is: because of this, people say that Lytvyn is a Litmus test. You want to know where things are heading in Ukraine, watch his behavior. One can hear from inside the parlaiment the shouts of the thousands of people (from the opposition TV it looked like at least 5-10,000 alone around the parlaiment) outside. At one point, those outside started singing the national anthem. I was in a cafe eating lunch, talking with some people I just met about what Americans know about the situation in Ukraine, when those demonstrators started to sing. Everyone in the cafe stood and sang the national anthem. I saw an old man with a tear on his cheek. This is an emotional experience for all.

A national uprising is taking place. The vast majority of Ukrainians--and I mean this in a civic sense, meaning citizens of Ukraine regardless of ethnicity--are voting once again today. The majority know which candidate is a pluralist, who is open to all their diverse interests, cultures, and dreams. Most importantly of all, they know who is the populist, who will fight to end corruption and will fight to reform an unequal power structure, and who will fight to redistribute the wealth of a rich country whose people are poor but proud.

Today, Ukrainians are indeed harvesting oranges in their own country, because they are tired of having to leave home and harvest oranges elsewhere!

Stefan

PS--As I write you, at 5 PM, Jushchenko is addressing those deputies at and the nation from the Parlaiment.

PPS-I just read that a pro-Janukovych rally in Cherkasy was overrun by Jushcenko supporters, and has turned into a pro-Jushchenko rally. The same seems to be happening in Kharkiv. Please look at Jushchenko's Our Ukraine website, which has an english versiosn and constant updates and photos of what is going on: http://www.razom.org.ua/

And one other thing: things seem farely calm, no reports of provocation, etc., yet. . .

*******************

YANUKOVYCH DECLARED WINNER (sent minutes later):

I just heard--been sitting at this computer for too long. The bastard government of Ukraine has declared Janukovych winner in the election. Absurd. The fight, now, really is on. . .

To get the election nullified, the President must initiate the nullification, not the parlaiment. . .this according to Ukraine's absurdly undemocratic constitution that gives all the power to the president. I like to call Urkaine's system a limited presidential dictatorship.

*******************

YUSHCHENKO TAKES PRESIDENTIAL OATH (again minutes later, but this time it was a short article from the AP):

KIEV, Ukraine - Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko took a symbolic presidential oath of office in Ukraine's parliament chamber Tuesday, defiantly claiming power as tens of thousands of his supporters massed outside.

Yushchenko approached the podium and took the oath after a special parliamentary session had officially ended, the Russian news agency Interfax reported.
Some 191 lawmakers had gathered for the special session to consider an opposition request to vote no-confidence in the Central Election Commission and declare the official results of Sunday's run-off election between Yushchenko and Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych invalid. Support from at least 226 members of the 450-seat parliament was needed for the motion to succeed.
Yushchenko had earlier claimed victory in the runoff, even though the commission declared Yanukovych the winner. The opposition has said the election was rigged.

SENT NOV. 22, 2004, or DAY 1 of OR

2005-11-22T00:43:00.000-08:00

Greetings on this, the first anniversary of the first day of the OR!

Let us hope that this day will serve as a powerful reminder to the YuGov (thanks Leopolis for this coinage), or the current powers-that-be that are of the "Orange" persuasion, of the need to cooperate going into parliamentary elections this Spring. . .

Here is my post to my list-serve one year ago today, followed by pictures:

IS THE REVOLUTION BEGINNING?

Greetings Friends,

My hands are shaking, my head is spinning, and things are moving fast. The authorities in this country are beyond shameless. They have dared to repeat again what they did the first round, but to an even greater and more fantastic extreme. There has been violence, there have been police actions, it is all rather unimaginable and simply absurd. But it appears that the people of Ukraine are not taking it. There are demonstrations everywhere today. People are heading en masse for the capital.

Early in the day yesterday the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the EU's human rights watchdog, the descendant of the Helsinki Commission) simply threw up its arms in disgust yesterday. All other watch-dogs (beside the CIS, of course) have confirmed the absurdity of the situation here as well. Abuses, violations, and falsifcations are rampant, at a level much worse than in the first round (I will try to provide a catalogue below, if time remains before I need to catch a bus). This is the objective situation in Ukraine right now: anyone who denies it is a shameless liar, ignorant fool, or power-drunk apologist. Any Western newspaper or reporter (such as the Wall Street Journal who published the Yanukovych letter, or the Washinton Post that printed an article by US Democrats who stated that the first round was overall fair) are not objectively reporting an objective situation but are subjective apologists for a power-drunk oligarchy that is keeping its people in poverty and which looks like, at the moment, it just may fall.

I am writing to you from the town of Berezhany (pop. approx. 25,000), which is close to Pidhajtsi, and which is also a county seat in the state of Ternopil. A town-hall meeting turned into a street march to the seat of the county govenment with maybe 3,000+ in attendance. Berezhany is one of the places in which authorities have been biligerent in their demands that budget workers turn-over their right to vote. Demonstrators shouted "Shame! Shame!" They demanded that the county authorities come out and explain their actions. Shouts were made, "Show your Faces!" as well as "Face the Power of the People!" Authorities did not come out, so the call went out: everyone return tomorrow morning at 7:30 AM, the start of the working day. Before departing, we sang the national anthem, "Shche Ne Vmerla Ukrajina" (Ukraine has not yet died). In fact, today and tonight, Ukraine is WAKING up!

There are 150,000 people in the capital city of Kyiv and more coming every hour (in fact, the last I heard any figures was earlier today, and there was a steady stream of people coming into the capital; people are expecting upwards of 500,000, possibly 1 million).

Earlier today it was reported that a tent city is forming in Kyiv. There are kitchens serving kovbasa (sausage), salo, and hot drinks. People already began gathering last night in Kyiv. 100,000 were on Independence Square last night protesting the government's actions, listening to speakers and dancing in the streets to the music of pop stars who have declared support for Jushenko. At the end of the night, the call came out for all to return at 9AM. It is now winter in Ukraine--a front arrived this weekend, bringing snow and cold. Regardless, a few hundred remained on the square overnight. A kitchen-tent was set up to support them last night. The 100,00 people returned this morning, and the movement to Kyiv continues.

Viktor Jushchenko, Julija Tymoshenko, and Oleksandr Moroz (the three biggest names in the opposition) as well as others have called for a nation-wide strike tomorrow.
They have called on all those who can to come to the capital. Those who can not, they have asked to go to the bigger cities and regional centers, and then if one cannot, to demonstrate at home, to stike at home. Reports are of huge movements of people. Students right now in Berezhany are here in this club writing to friends and making plans to go to Kyiv. Many are planning to take the regular night train from nearby Ternopil to Kyiv tonight.

There is a huge demonstration in L'viv. Similar demonstrations as what happened here in Berezhany are happening in towns, small and large, all over Ukraine: Pidhajtsi, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk (I heard at least 5,000 demonstrated), Zhytomyr, Kharkiv, Kyiv, everywhere.

Now to the anecdotes of things that have been happening, both good and bad:

To repeat, the OSCE last night made a forceful declaration that this situation is absurd. Why?

All over eastern Ukraine international observers were refused entrance to voting centers, and a speaker at the demonstration here in Berezhany said that Ukrainian observers from this town were blocked from going to voting centers by police who refused to let them leave their hotels in the city of Kherson.

There are reports of wide-spread ballot stuffing, especially in Donetsk, where Janukovych once was governor. Also in Donetsk are suspiciously high voter-participation counts. Supposedly 96% of eligible voters in Donetsk voted. Also from Donetsk are reports of people being caught trying to vote more than once. And one more thing about Donetsk: the town last night held a huge concert and festival to celebrate Janukovych's victory.

In Vynnytjsa, someone broke into a voting center and stole ballots.

In Kyiv and Lviv, there are reports of ballots being damaged by substances spilled into ballot-boxes. Also from Lviv a report has been made of someone trying to burn the ballots, but who was stopped.

The problem of mispelling of names occured once again, as well as all the shenanigans of the first round: the dead voting, people voting twice, etc. Add to it what I wrote yesterday about reports of disappearing ink and the budget-worker scandal.

Also recall that I wrote yesterday that reporters (as well as offical observers) were barred entry into voting centers. The word still travels faster than the image, even in this postmodern age.

In an aside about something that has occured before the election, apparently a good number of people across Ukraine have been fired from their jobs for having had not voted for Janukovych the first round.

Also in Kyiv last night where about 1,000 people demonstrating in front of the buildings of the Central Electoral (Falsification) Commission. However, also present were 4 armored vehicles and soldiers guarding the building. What are they afraid of?

20 buses have arrived in the South Station of Kyiv with people in civilian clothes, but they are suspected to be soldiers. Also, there are reports of other buses arriving in the capital from the east suspected to be carrying paid provocateurs.

In general, it has been reported that buses coming to the capital from the east have had virtually no interference from police, while buses from the West are having numerous problems. Recall what I once wrote about my experience riding on a bus in western Ukraine on the day of the first-round. And then today in Berezhany a speaker said that trains out of Ternopil were blocked.

So before going, I want to make 4 quick points:

1) I could quote statistics about vote counts, but what is the use? The plain and simple and objective situation is that this election was falsified. Jushchenko already became president the first round; but for those who doubt that, there is no doubt today. Only liars, fools, or greedy-pigs deny this. Today huge masses of people all over Ukraine are at demonstrations chanting "JU-SHCHEN-KO PRE-SI-DENT!"

2) The media are crucial. The independent news channel 5 deserves respect. All those reporters in the state media and stations owned by oligarchs who went on hunger strike the first round and again today deserve respect. And here is food for thought: a major turning point in the revolution that swept Milosevic from power was when the state TV turned against him. We need that here in Ukraine. But regardless, the word travels faster than the image in a country with generations of experience with resistance.

3) Ukrainians are showing their will to fight. They are taking to the streets. Democracy is not only in the act of voting but the act of filling the streets and shouting. The people of Ukraine are voting a second and a third and fourth time, or however many days they will have to stand and demand that they be heard.

4) This election is not about whether Ukraine will head for the West or toward Russia. It's not about Ukrainian language and culture versus Russian language and culture within Ukraine. It's about Ukraine itself. It is about whether the people of this country--whether ethnic Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Romani, German, Tatar, etc.--can uproot a corrupt oligarchy that is bleeding this country dry for its own gratification, that is manipulating and politicizing the mulitcultural fabric of this fantastic country for the purpose of divide and rule. It is about poverty, about daily bread--it's about getting rid of an oligarchy of greedy bastards who, while dividing the people by pressing them to think in terms of khlib (Ukrainian for bread) and khleb (Russian for bread), has been and is fighting to keep on stealing the dough.

Peace and Love,

Stefan

PS--as I was about to close this email, I have overheard that a student in this internet club just recieved an SMS message on his cellphone from a friend in Kyiv. The friend wrote, "Kyiv is harvesting oranges!"

Orange is the color associated with Jushchenko's campaign, and this is a humorous statement in that many Ukrainians have found work picking oranges in Portugal, as has this fellow's friend who wrote the message. . .

Back to the present: Read here an article I wrote for Toronto's New Pathway.

Some photos from Berezhany (still had a crappy camera; but I was soon to get a much better one!). . .reading the piece linked above will help with the photos. . .

This is the scene as we got to the center of town 40 or so minutes before the meeting was to begin.

People watch and listen to the speech made earlier in the day by Yushchenko in Kyiv. I believe this is one of the most important moments or speeches in Ukrainian, and also in Eastern European, history. It was the statement that began a revolution, much like the famous statement that began the Bolshevik coup (i.e., "All power to the Soviets," which was a lie, or not what Lenin really meant; he should have said, "All Power to the Almighty Party!").

To paraphrase what Yushchenko said that afternoon to the multitude assembled on Independence Square in Kyiv: "The time has come to build on this square a tent camp, and I want to say to each one of you: have no fear. Be here on the square, and to all of you throughout the country, come to us, by train, by car, by bus. Come here and be tens and tens of thousands of people."

So the Guardian writer who wrote that the OR was a meticulously planned event was partially right: they had planned for, or anticipated, tens of thousands of people, based on the precedents of the Ukraine without Kuchma and the other anti-Kuchma campaigns in 2001. But then suddenly, unexpectedly, without a plan, without even a hope, the incredible happened, beginning on November 22, 2004 and continuing for the next 17 days: approximately 1 million people streamed into the capital! And millions all over the country participated in demonstrations! This was, if anything, spontaneous, unplanned, and in no way motivated nor determined to happen by US tricks.

But also, isn't it strange that a leftist writer would criticize fellow progressives in Ukraine for doing what it is that leftist activists and progressives are supposed to be really good at? That is, organizing? For it was Ukraine's truly progressive community that rallied and organized around the OR, and they should be commended for a job well done. (Note: Vitrenko's party and the Communist Party, which some critics have tried to paint as anti-free trade, anti-neoliberal progressives, are nothing but unreformed, authoritarian and dogmatic Soviet communists; and by the way, the people who tried to paint the critical mass of the Orange Revolution's organizers as neo-Nazis are nothing but ignorant assholes. . .)

The next few photos were of the scene before the county administration building in Berezhany, where people shouted "Shame!" at officials and demanded that they come out to explain themselves. . .

SENT NOV. 21, 2004

2005-11-21T17:45:00.000-08:00

This was an email I sent on the day of the elections last year. It was a hodge podge of thoughts, photos, and snippets of the press. . .

UKRAINIANS WILLING TO FIGHT:

On this day of the elections, Ukrainians are ready to fight for their future. My hands are shaking as I write this. I am so inspired by the news of resistance coming out from all over the country. Things are not looking good in terms of what authorities are up to, however, and I am also angry at the moment about an article I read on the yahoo website about Ukraine's election, which I will talk about in a moment. Anyhow, below is a hodge-podge of articles and photos and comments

But first of all, reports of resistance:

PORA! activists have been lying in front of and underneath buses and cars set to repeat what happened in the first round: roaming buses of formerly dead and other types of souls intending to vote more than once. See photos below, from Kyiv:

And here's a poster from the PORA! website www.pora.org.ua calling for demonstrations to start in Kyiv on Kontraktova Ploshcha. BY-THE-WAY you ALL should check out this website. . .it is in both Ukrainian and English and is one of the best sites for real news about what's going on in Ukraine.

PORA IS AVANDE-GUARD OF VICTORY!

NOVEMBER 21^ST (Sunday)

VOTE AND COME!

PROVE THAT THEY HAVE LOST

Meeting of winners at Kontraktova Plosha

from 16.00 and till VICTORY

Action plan

16.00 announcement of the attacking plan

16.30 - 19.00 rock-marathon "Voice of Victory"

19.00 march of winners to the Independence Square

... - ... Announcement of the elections results

PORA hot line: 461-41-58

The translation is from their own website, not mine. . .

What they are calling for in this poster is for activists, students, anyone and everyone, to meet on a square in Kyiv in the Podil neighborhood close to one of the major universities (Kyiv-Mohyla) there from whence they plan to march to the central square, and the stay put until the real election results become known, and Jushchenko declared president, since in actual fact he already won in the fist round (but they didn't write all that in the poster).

This past week has been full of demonstrating, and below are some pics of PORA! actions from around Ukraine. But, by-the-way, about that issue of "budget workers" being ordered to vote: I wrote that the parlaiment had issued a decree ordering that people vote only where they live. Well, to take effect, the decree had to be signed by President Kuchma, who of course has not signed it. Kuchma also appeared on TV last night, once again downplaying the seriousness of the violations in the first round, and warned the opposition that, "There will be no revolution."

More photos from student strikes that took place on Wednesday from all over Ukraine; that is, I forgot to mention earlier that in addition to all the town-hall type meetings and pickets that were held last Wednesday in protest of the budget-worker scandal, nationwide there were student strikes and demos, intended to show the demand of students that this weekend's vote would be free and fair.

In this photo, see the 1+1 crossed out? 1+1 is the state television channel, a network of lying liars. . .

The PORA! symbol/flag

Here are some highlights of nasty things that happened this past week in these various Ukrainian cities, according to the PORA website:

Mykolajiv--Police tried to search an appartment of an activist under pretext that someone wanted by police was in-hiding there.

Kherson--27 activists arrested.

Lviv--unkown attackers entered a Yushenko's supporter's house and beat his mother and grandmother.

Kharkiv--cruel beating by unknown people of PORA activist Kostiantyn ????.
Kharkiv--policemen tear activists' passports

Simferopil--two PORA activists were arrested and later released in Simferopol; PORA states, "We are greatful to everybody who called the police department and demanded the release of Subat Martyrosian and Kostia Chystiakov."

Vynnytsja--seven PORA activists arrested

Sumy--students anounced a hunger strike and set-up tents in center of town. City threatened to forcefully remove tents and stikers. . .

PORA is the group specifically accused of fostering "terrorism." They say they are victim of the police planting grenades in their offices. One poster at a PORA! demo stated: "Studenty kydajut jajtsja a militsijionery pidkidajut lymony (Students through eggs but policemen plant bombs)" refering to the incidence this summer when a student in the town of Ivano-Frankivsk threw an egg at Janukovych.

There are rumors floating about that the presidential administration may have distributed 130,000 pens with disappearing ink. The Ukrainian people's informal, what I call "spoken-word, do-it-yourself, underground info network" is encouraging all Ukrainians to bring their own pens to voting centers (heard this warning on Radio Era)! This is just incredible, the shamlessness of the authorities.

Oh, by-the-way, there are reports of anti-government demonstrations at the "voting-parties" ogranized by authorities for budget-workers, with people arriving to shout at the party-goers who gave up their passports and registrations "Hin'ba! Hin'ba! (Shame! Shame!). Such activist-oriented people are also gathering, forming into linked-armed chains and standing in front of buses of the dead and of police and shouting "Shame! Shame!". This was reported today on Channel 5, the only independent news network in Ukraine, available for the most part via Cable (although I hear some cities carry the network publically).

Other news reported on Channel 5: In Donetsk, journalists have been refused entry into various voting centers, and have had their press passes taken and destroyed. The anouncer concluded this report with a grin and a reassuring glance into the camera as satetd the following: "No Matter--the Voice travels faster than the Image."

The grassroots information network here, I re-emphasize, is something incredible.

Photo of Jushchenko speaking a the 100,000 person strong rally that took place on Nov.6 in Kyiv, demanding a free and fair election

Other photos:

Picket in front of the TV Channel Inter this week; the sign says "Warning: Lies!"

More picketing of stations: The poster on the right says "Enough Lieing!"

This is a brief statement from Radio Free Europe: Jushchenko this time is not calling off demonstrations. . .

YUSHCHENKO WARNS OF 'STRONG-ARM SCENARIO' IN UKRAINIAN PRESIDENTIAL RUNOFF
Opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko told journalists in Kyiv on 19 November that he fears the authorities will resort to a "strong-arm scenario" in his runoff with Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych on 21 November, Interfax reported. According to Yushchenko, the strong-arm scenario is one in which Yanukovych is declared the winner on the morning of 22 November irrespective of the vote count. "If we encounter large-scale falsification, we will lead people to the streets and we will defend our rights," Reuters quoted Yushchenko as saying. In an address to voters published the previous day, Yushchenko called on his supporters to sign up for "voluntary people's teams" organized by his local election staffs and pledged to mobilize "millions of citizens for the defense of the constitution." JM

More news coming out today (I have copied it from INTERFAX):

Yushchenko's HQ in Luhansk attacked

LUHANSK. Nov 21 (Interfax-Ukraine) - The election headquarters of Ukraine's opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the Luhansk region was attacked at around 3:00 p.m. local time (4:00 p.m. Moscow time) on Sunday.

The attackers arrived by cars with license plates issued in the Donetsk region, an Interfax correspondent reported.

Several people were injured in a fight between the building's security guards and the attackers. They are receiving medical aid on the spot. The building was damaged in the incident.

A police unit has arrived at the site of the incident. Two people are reported to have been detained.

This from REPORTERs WITHOUT BORDERs:

Journalist brutally beaten in Kirovograd

Reporters Without Borders condemned a brutal attack on Alexander Danutsa, head of news and presenter on TV-Stymul in Kirovograd, central Ukraine in ongoing systematic harassment of independent media ahead of presidential elections on 21 November.

The worldwide press freedom organisation warned the interior minister Mykola Bilokon in a letter "what might happen next to Alexander Danutsa" and urged him "to do everything possible to protect the journalist".

Danutsa was attacked in the early evening of 18 November as he got into the lift at the Turist

Hotel that houses his TV studios. Two blackclad men followed him in and seized his camera and videotape and then brutally beat him.

The tape contained evidence linking local authorities to fraudulent activities in advance of polling.

His assailants told him that it was his last warning and that he should stop reporting on the election campaign. He was taken to hospital with concussion and bruising.

Danutsa said he had been receiving constant threats in connection with his reporting. A few days earlier an anonymous caller told him, "there's a plot reserved for you at the cemetery" and on another occasion, "they are waiting for you at the hospital".

The channel itself has also received numerous threats since it began broadcasting the news programme headed by Danutsa. TV-Stymul also relays opposition television Kanal 5 in the Kirovograd region.

OK, I will stop. There is so much happening, so much both good and bad.

SENT NOV. 20, 2004

2005-11-20T15:32:00.000-08:00

This was sent as an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal in reaction to a letter from Viktor Yanukovych that the WSJ published earlier in the week; it didn't get published. . .

I could not find a link on the internet to Yanukovych's letter today. . .

WHO IS THE CENTRIST FORCE IN UKRAINE'S ELECTIONS?:

This Sunday, November 21 Ukrainians will vote in a second round of presidential elections which will greatly effect the future of this country of strategic importance to both Russia and the West. Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal published a letter by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine's current Prime Minister and one of two candidates on the ballot this Sunday. Yanukovych downplayed the seriousness of widespread claims that the first round of the elections, which took place on October 31, were anything but free and fair. He also staked the claim that he--not his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko--is the one candidate with a moderate, centrist policy that is pluralist and democratic, thereby implying that only he is free of the kind of dangerous nationalism the West is fond of warning Ukrainians against. One should recall George H. W. Bush's infamous "Chicken Kiev" speech in 1991, when he warned Ukrainians against "suicidal nationalism" and against voting for independence from the USSR.

True to his style, Yanukovych is lieing. Only observers from the CIS were willing to state that the first round proceeded in a free and fair manner, while all other foriegn observers have condemned not only the election itself, but the entire campaign season leading to the election, as unfree and unfair. Before the election, President Kuchma and other oligarchs allied with Yanukovych did everything they could to promote Yanukovych's candidacy through their control of both State and non-State media in Ukraine. The abuse of State media and campaign election laws were so widespread that one observer of Ukraine, Professor of Political Science Paul D'Anieri at Lawrence University in Kansas, commented before the first round, "It is no longer imaginable that the election will be regarded as free and fair."

Indeed it was not, and authorities seem ready to try again to falsify results. Early this week, "budget workers" whose wages are paid from the government's budget were ordered by the presidential administration to turn in both their voter registration cards and passports, both of which are necessary to vote on Sunday. The presidential administration's stated rationale for this move was that it intended to vote on behalf of workers to make it easier for them to attend election parties and other events on Sunday. However, the presidential administration is staffed at the highest levels with individuals allied to Yanukovych, and few in Ukraine believed the sincerity of the government's intention. In fact, so few believed that on Wednesday a wave of grassroots demonstrations broke out across the country in protest against this renewed attempt to falsify the elections even before they begin. Particularly large gatherings itook place n Lviv and Kyiv, and smaller, town-hall type meetings took place elsewhere. The outcry was so great that on Thursday the Ukrainian parlaiment decreed that Ukrainians could vote Sunday only in the towns where they live, thus undercutting the administrations ability to vote on behalf of workers.

Such is the kind of democracy Yanukovych supports, one that is hardly any different from the Soviet "democracy" he claims to be replacing. In the end, he believes that authorities, not the people, should decide the outcome.

He is also lieing when he claims that he is a centrist and non-nationalist. Yanukovych has consistently attempted to politicize issues of culture in Ukraine in an effort to split Ukrainian and Russian voters. One example is polticization of issues surrounding the closure of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Yanukovych--as well as many others in Ukraine--has frequently waxed critical of his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko, for the way in which he closed the plant while he was himself Prime Minister in 2000-2001. The closure of the plant was a serious financial burden on Ukraine that made it more energy-dependent, and the West, which demanded its closure, did not offer any financial assistance to off-set the costs of the closure on Ukraine's fragile economy. Yanukovych has used this as an example of the way in which Yushchenko promotes an allegedly Ukrainian nationalist agenda of appeasing the West while alienating it from Russia--thus frightening Russian voters.

In truth, the Chernobyl matter was a dilemma whose solution in any direction was bound to anger many and please few. It had been one of the main elements crippling Ukraine's relations with the West for some time, and Yushchenko took a controversial decision that increased Ukraine's standing with the West, while at the same time his own government as Prime Minister continued to work closely with Russia. Ukraine's ties with Russia are unquestionable--it is wholly false to politicize the matter of cooperation with the northern neighbor, as Yanukovych does. Yanukovych also tries to split Russian votes by stating that he would support dual-citizenship with Russia; Yushchenko counters with the notion that simplifying the procedures of border-crossing for Russians with ties in the Russian Republic should be enough. Both men have a solution for a problem--that of Russian voter's frustration with delays and complications during border-crossings into Russia--but which solution has the mark of nation-building?

Most oppositionists regard Yanukovych as intending much more than cooperation with Russia, and it is important to note that the truly radical, Ukrainian-nationalist parties have rejected Yushchenko. Yushchenko's main concern is the economy; he has never descended into the realm of cultural polemics, except to state that he intends to build a Ukraine for all who live in Ukraine. He often speaks publically in Russian, and what is more, he is a serious challenger to Yanukovych's claims to success in what is the most critical matter in this election--economic reform.

Given Ukraine's dire economic straits, it is true to say that economics matters more in this election than cultural politics. Yanukovych claims that his government has succeeded in stimulating a rise in wages. Yushchenko counters that prices have risen more than wages, and that inflation is returning en force because of Yanukovych's policies. Yushchenko is credited with having had brought Ukraine's skyrocketing inflation under control in 1995 with the successful introduction of a new currency when he was head of Ukraine's National Bank. In the end, it is Yushchenko who cares more about what average Ukrainian voters care about--their daily bread. And while Yanukovych is encouraging voters to think in terms of khlib or khleb, Ukrainian and Russian respectively for bread, he is busy preparing to steal the dough.

It is regretable that the Wall Street Journal has reproduced the unbalanced promotion of Janukovych that has been the halmark of the campaign season in Ukraine, by publishing only his article and nothing by the opposition candidate, Viktor Jushchenko.

Since I wrote this, I learned that the WSJ did publish a piece by Yushchenko earlier, on August 24, 2004. Read it here.

The WSJ also published another letter by Yushchenko later on, after the OR had more or less succeeded. It was a good piece; but I can't find a link and I know I have it saved somewhere in my e-files, but have no time to look for it now. . .

SENT NOV 19, 2004

2005-11-19T17:13:00.000-08:00

Summary of the Pre Election Debate held last year between the Viktors:

There are other summaries out there in cyberspace; I apologize for not taking the time to provide you with links to them. . .

Last Monday, Nov. 15, there was a televised debate between Viktor Janukovych and Viktor Jushchenko that was very telling, and which has inspired me to write a lengthy rumination. Below I give a summary of what was said, interspersed with my own analysis or commentary. What I have written below should be of great assistance to those of you who don’t really know (but want to) in much detail what the situation is in Ukraine today, what the issues in this election are, and thus who these two candidates really are. In course of trying to write this as an objective account of the debate, I found myself all too compelled to get into the middle of it all—in the end, I couldn’t hide the fact that I am clearly for Jushchenko and passionately against Janukovych. So much for journalistic objectivity.

But who cares, since only one of the candidates consistently told the truth anyway.

So really this is a thought-piece on Ukraine’s current predicament and election which I wrote to instruct myself as much as anyone else. Its rather long, and I may have made mistakes; I hope more knowledgeable readers will correct me where I am wrong.

The debate centered around three questions to the candidates: What are your policies for the economy, on domestic policy, and on foreign policy? Based on how each candidate answered each question, not on the substance of what they said, I give the first two answers to Jushchenko, the last one to Janukovych.

Some background is necessary if you are to follow what was said in the debate:

Viktor Jushchenko (whose last name can also be spelled Yushchenko in English) is currently a member (a deputy to) Ukraine’s parliament. He has long been active in government; previously he was head of the National Bank of Ukraine, then prime minister, and today is leader of the largest opposition bloc in parliament. He is an economist and banker by training and profession, and worked as such in Soviet times. He is also rumored to be a member of the Paris Club of financiers. He is widely respected internationally for overseeing, while head of the National Bank (served 1993-1999), the very successful introduction of the hryvnja (Ukraine’s currency), in what was then an exceptionally chaotic economic climate in Ukraine (mid-1990s). Through the successful introduction of the hrynja in place of the karbovanets and other of his actions as bank chief, Yushchenko was instrumental in bringing Ukraine’s racing inflation under control, with the result that Ukraine’s economy began to stabilize to the point that today, at long last, it is making a promising if slow and fragile recovery. Later, during his brief tenure as prime minister in 1999-2001 (appointed in Dec. of 1999), he began financial reforms of the government that resulted in the payment of months-overdue pension and of wages to workers in government industries and pensions; he also oversaw payment of a significant portion of Ukraine’s foreign debt. Furhermore, he and his deputy PM Julija Tymoshenko initiated reform of the energy sector, Ukraine’s most corrupt sector of the economy from whence many an oligarch sprang.

Viktor Janukovych (whose last name can also be spelled Yanukovych) is currently Ukraine’s prime minister (PM). Ukraine has both a prime minister and a president, while the president is the ultimate authority. The president is elected, while the PM is appointed by the president (the president can also dismiss the PM), who’s appointment is then approved by parliament. Janukovych’s early career is a bit muddled, but his campaign pamphlets paint him as a fellow “orphaned” (his mother died when he was young, and his father abandoned him to his grandmother) at an early age who then had to work hard to rise up in the world. The image he tries to project of himself is that of a self-made man. What is more solidly known about him is that he twice spent time in Soviet prisons for theft and assault. His speech, even when talking to voters at rallies and a few times in the course of the debate Monday night, is full of prisoner’s slang. It is widely believed that he rose to power through what is called “the Donetsk clan,” one of the oligarchic clans with a stranglehold on Ukraine’s economy and government, and that today he is part of its inner circle. Of course he denies all this, including the reasons for his jail-time, about which he claims to have been victim of the injustice of Soviet courts. He instead tries to emphasize his public service, i.e., the political positions he has held. He was governor of the Donetsk oblast (state) before being appointed PM by Kuchma two years ago. Before becoming PM, Janukovych was virtually unknown throughout most of Ukraine.

So onto the debate:

Janukovych began the debate with a short greeting and statement that he agreed to the televised debate because he had received so many letters asking him to join the debate.

Janukovych had initially refused to publicly debate Jushchenko under the premise that Jushchenko was such a liar that a civilized debate could not be had with him. Also, Janukovych’s campaign had made a statement that he would only debate Jushchenko if Jushchenko apologized for “insulting” him during the campaign season. Janukovych is apparently “insulted” by Jushchenko’s constant references to him and most of the Ukrainian authorities (i.e., to the oligarchs) as thieves, bandits, etc. One of Jushchenko’s campaign slogans is that “Bandits will sit in prison!” and the bandits he is refering to are precisely Yanukovych and associates. Also, the opposition movement that has thrown its support to Yushchenko in this election has made great use of Janukovych’s prisoner’s background, plastering posters with images of Janukovych as a prisoner everywhere they can, and using all kinds of prison-slang in anti-Janukovych slogans and speeches, such as what Jushchenko said in his own introductory remarks to the debate: “The difference between the two of us is not the difference between two Viktors but between two world views, between doing things in the prisoner’s way (using slang that means this), and doing them honestly.” (Note: many pundits of various political persuasions in Ukraine have said that the difference between Jushchenko and Janukovych is merely the difference between two Viktors. In other words, for them, Viktor Jushchenko is just another of what he says he is not, an oligarch like Viktor Janukovych; the difference between the two Vitkors is the slight difference between two oligarchs. . .)

In the end, an apology from Jushchenko was not forthcoming, which Janukovych no doubt counted on; and he nonetheless was pressured to join in the debate—there was much public outcry over his refusal to debate. So he concluded his introductory remarks with the statement (which he has used frequently during his campaign) that he’s not a talker, he’s a doer, revealing to my mind the real reasons he didn’t want to debate: Janukovych doesn’t have the sophisticated intellect that Jushchenko does.

Which brings me to another point: much like Republicans and conservative pundits did in the US with Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, Janukovych and his backers have done everything they can to portray Jushchenko as a liar and manipulator, encouraging voters to confuse Jushchenko’s having a sharp intellect and a firm grasp of the issues with his being a slick-willy, a sly-as-a-fox manipulator who is leading the people to their own damnation.

Thus, in various moments throughout the debate, Janukovych—in terms very reminiscent to Republican tactics against Clinton—tried to discredit Jushchenko’s populism while claiming that he was the real populist, a self-made man of the people while Jushchenko is supposed to be an aloof elite. Below I will show examples from the debate of how he did this. What is important is that it is clear that not enough of the voters have bought it, if you accept all the independent counts that show Jushchenko already in truth won with over 50% of the vote, and that he performed much better than expected in many parts of Ukraine that Janukovych was expected to win by landslide. (Perhaps the Soviet experience, when such personal attacks on politicians and leaders were just par for the course, especially when denouncing or removing someone from a post, has made Ukraine’s electorate less susceptible to such below-the-belt tactics.)

Thus, in the course of the debate Janukovych made several claims in rather contradictory terms that Jushchenko represents both the old guard of old Soviet thinking (implying that he is a manipulator and liar), while at the same time Jushchenko is a national-liberal, meaning that he is a Ukrainian (ultra-)nationalist that the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine should fear. Of course, he did not make these conflicting accusations back-to-back, but at different points in the course of the debate, depending on which was the better method of attack at the moment. In general, one can say that Janukovych spent only half his time discussing anything specific, such as the alleged successes of his government and what he promises to accomplish as President, and the other half of his time in empty talk about Jushchenko in general and occasionally venturing some specific attacks on the substance and successes of his policies and record. Janukovych’s attacks went as follows:

Janukovych claimed that Jushchenko was responsible for having had emptied Ukraine’s treasury while PM, thus leaving the Ukrainian government nearly bankrupt and Janukovych with the difficult task of rebuilding the state’s funds at the start of his government. Janukovych, however, never stated exactly, just how Jushchenko was responsible for the empty treasury at the start of his government, which is exemplary of how he debated in general: he only once made any assertion while stating figures (about wages, which we will get to), while Jushchenko in general gave facts and figures to back up his assertions.

Well, OK, this is not exactly true: Janukovych did give one possible explanation for how Jushchenko depleted the treasury. He mentioned the issue of the closure of the Chornobyl power plant while Jushchenko was PM as hitting the treasury hard because of the high cost of decommissioning the plant and because of the subsequent costs incurred as Ukraine became more dependent on foreign energy sources, and thus had to buy/import foreign energy. I don’t consider this as a legitimate explanation of how Jushchenko despoiled the treasury because, a) these issues around Chornobyl alone could not have depleted the treasury to the extent that it has been emptied, and b) Janukovych in this instance is unfairly politicizing a very difficult issue that had been crippling Ukraine’s relations with the West for some time. If Ukraine truly wanted to maintain good relations with both the West as well as with Russia, something had to be done about Chornobyl (Western powers have continuously been pushing for the closure of the remaining reactors still active at the plant, site of the world’s greatest nuclear catastrophe to date). As we will see, Janukovych politicized this issue by implying that it indicated that Jushchenko is a darling of the West who will betray Ukraine’s stability and vital interests by abandoning a policy of cooperation with Russia. In fact, at one point, he said directly to Jushchenko that he’s not a patriot. Thus, Janukovych can be seen here as politicizing the issue of Chornobyl, turning into a debate about nationalism and patriotism in an effort to split Russian and Russo-Ukrainian voters from Jushchenko. We will get into this in more detail at the end of the essay, for it is the stickiest of all issues facing Jushchenko—many, even those who overall did and do support Jushchenko, were upset by the closure of the plant, but mostly for the way it has indeed made Ukraine more energy-dependent, and by the fact that although the West demanded the decommissioning of the plant, it did not give any aid-money to help with the cost of the closure and to off-set the enormous financial burden it put on Ukraine as it became more dependent on foreign energy imports.

Anyhow, this is how Jushchenko responded to the attack that he emptied the treasury:

He more or less said, “You should have seen the state the treasury was in when I began my government as PM—you’re lucky that I was there before you,” and emphasized how he was able, as PM, to raise funds to pay pensions and wages that were months overdue (unpaid because the government was broke), and to make a start on paying Ukraine’s foreign debt. He went on to discuss how the ongoing problems of the treasury have nothing to do with anything he did, but with the lasting effects of the banditry of a government of corrupt oligarchs who used money from the treasury (as well as from elsewhere) to buy state-run businesses and industries during privatization, and who often bought these businesses at only half their value; and who has spent money on fancy cars and luxuries for itself; who has spent state money on fixing up some of the infrastructure only in those parts of Ukraine where they, as oligarchs, are powerful; who have spent money on fixing up government buildings where they work; and who have spent money on plenty of other corrupt shenanigans that have resulted in the widening of the gulf that exists between the people and the government, such that that gulf arguably is bigger today in post-Soviet Ukraine than it was even in Soviet times, etc.

For example, Jushchenko specifically mentioned the infamous instance in which the oligarch Akhmetov (a 39-yr-old fellow who is arguably Ukraine’s most powerful oligarch) bought Ukraine’s largest industry for only half its real value. (Ukrainians love to talk about this, as well as about Lazarenko’s shenanigans.) Jushchenko said that in this one moment, the state’s treasury was robbed of at least 5 billion hrynja (or $1 billion)—money, he was quick to mention, that could have been used to pay pensions and wages, or to support other social programs, such as education (such as providing stipends for higher education) or healthcare. Jushchenko then gave other examples of how the banditry of the government is depleting the treasury: Kuchma has used 85 million hrynjas for renovation of the buildings of the presidential administration (including his own penthouse in Kyiv!), and Jushchenko briefly mentioned the way the government spends money on “niceties” for itself (such as cars, dachas, travel, etc.). The government spends money this way, while at one point just two years ago pensions and wages in state industries were not being paid--and which only did get paid when Jushchenko was PM, because Jushchenko imposed fiscal discipline on the government, which is probably a reason Kuchma fired him a year later. And Jushchenko mentioned, in various points of the debate, that the government’s spending on itself goes on today (with only the brief interruption of the period that he was PM), while wages and pensions in Ukraine have slumped to the point that they are now lowest in all of the former Soviet Republics—lower even than in Belarus’! The government—Jushchenko did not explicitly state during the debate, but he has many times at opposition rallies—is not a government at all, but a counterproductive force working against society; it’s a parasite living off of society. It steals the people’s money—money they need for social programs—and fills its own pockets. Thus Jushchenko says about Janukovych that he is part of a government that is not a government at all but a criminal racket bleeding Ukraine dry.

By-the-way, we will talk about this assertion about wages and pensions later, for Janukovych contests this claim that they are lowest in all the CIS—and as usual, he does so without any real figures, while Jushchenko demolished his contestation with actual facts, figures, and analysis.

But back to the problems of the treasury—Jushchenko’s argument thus was that although he did not leave the treasury in perfect shape, he left it in much better shape then it was before he became PM, and furthermore, it had been his intention to work toward replenishing it, but he wasn’t given the chance! That is, it is important to remember that Jushchenko was fired after being PM for litte more than one year. Janukovych implied that he was fired because he was bankrupting the government (with the issue of Chornobyl being his only example of how Jushchenko was doing so), but Jushchenko retorted with saying that his first priority as PM had been to find the money to pay overdue wages and pensions and to start paying off some of Ukraine’s foreign debt, both of which he successfully managed to do, and only then move on to the long-term problem of rebuilding the treasury. But what happened in the end? Kuchma allowed him to continue with his reformist government insofar as he managed to pay the wages and pensions and make significant payments to reduce Ukraine’s foreign debt, but then all of a sudden Kuchma fired him. Why? Well, once the wages, pensions, and a portion of the debt were paid, the policy of rebuilding the treasury clearly meant long-term, wide-scale reform of the way the government did business, which meant seriously challenging Kuchma’s own (highly corrupt) sources of power in the government. More specifically, Jushchenko got into trouble as PM when his deputy-PM, Julija Tymoshenko, began to aggressively attack corruption in the energry sector, which is the base of the oligarchy's wealth and power. So who, really, is responsible for the treasury still being in a mess, other than Kuchma?

And who is responsible for the treasury still being depleted and in chaos, other than the man who has been PM for the past two years? Janukovych, however, claims that his government has been paying debts, too; debts owed mostly to society, such as money still owed to victims of Chornobyl, or such as when he just recently, curiously just one month before the elections, announced a raise in pensions. We will see what Jushchenko has to say about all this (and once again how Janukovych is trying to motivate Russians and those still nostalgic for the USSR against Jushchenko by politicizing the Chornobyl issue.)

Then to these problems of the treasury, one needs to add the problem of inflation, which also decreased state revenues, let alone having a harmful, and at one time a very devastating, effect on the average person.

Janukovych tried to make Jushchenko seem solely responsible for the inflation of the early years of independence, when Leoid Kravchuk was President from Dec., 1991-June, 1994, and Jushchenko was head of the National Bank (again, 1993-1999, when he became PM). He did so by stating that a barter economy became the dominant mode of economic behavior while Jushchenko was head of the National Bank. You see, it is widely known that Kravchuk was liable to simply print more and more money to try and replenish the treasury after he oversaw its pillaging (i.e., he was President during the first round of privatization in which oligarchs ran-off with millions, if not billions), as well as for money to flow into society to try and cover needs. The result was an inflation that eventually skyrocketed. As inflation took off, barter slowly replaced exchange until it reached the point of being the dominant mode of economic behavior in Ukraine in the mid-19900s (the old currency, the karbovanets, was rendered practically worthless by inflation, and interestingly enough, a whole genre of political cartoons emerged representing officials discussing how to represent all the zeros on subsequent printings of the karbovanets).

[This is from Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, about Kravchuk: "He failed to avoid corruption in the privatization of country's industry and promote effective financial decisions. Ukrainian annual inflation rates from 1993 to 1995 reached the world's highest record of 10000%. Millions of loans given by semi-government banks defaulted. This led to delays of many years in salaries for industry workers, teachers etc. The collapse of the Black Sea Steamship Company became the saddest symbol of Kravchuk's era. This global merchant fleet, the largest in the world (based mostly in Odessa), was covertly sold out to foreign companies, mostly for fake debts. Hundreds of sailors who hadn't received their salaries were trapped for years on board their vessels throughout the world. Kravchuk's own son was later accused of taking part in this fraud." And this bastard remains free and talking all of his nonsense to this day in Ukraine; makes me want to scream for lustration in Ukraine. . .I added this paragraph today, Nov. 19, 2005]

How Jushchenko fits into all of this is not clear to my mind—there are no doubt better informed people out there who could tell you—but here’s what I can say. He was appointed head of the National Bank in 1993 by Kravchuk, and thus was Bank chief during the period of skyrocketing inflation, when barter replaced exchange. I don’t know if the undisciplined printing of money that was one of the main causes of inflation occurred while Jushchenko was National Bank chief, or if the printing took place in the two years of Kravchuk’s presidency before Jushchenko became head of the Bank. And if it did take place while Jushchenko was head of the bank, I don’t know how much freedom he had; i.e., whether he had to do Kravchuk’s bidding. Nonetheless, it seems that the Head of a National Bank would have something to do with the printing of money and controlling or causing inflation, no? Well, in that case, whether or not Jushchenko can be blamed (only in part, at most) for the inflation, he can also be praised for rescuing the situation in 1995, with the much praised (in Ukraine and internationally) introduction of the hrynja and implementation of fiscal policy that dramatically reduced inflation and was a major factor in the stabilization of Ukraine’s economy and its getting started on a path toward recovery (as we have already discussed). One can also take Jushchenko’s word for it, that he didn’t have anything to do with the growth of the barter economy (i.e., with inflation), if one would like. That is, at the point in the debate when Janukovych made this accusation that Jushchenko was responsible for the growth of the barter economy, Jushchenko verbally baulked at and interrupted him, speaking briefly out of turn, saying “That (the rise in barter) had nothing to do with me—I was head of a Bank that deals with money, not barter.” Of course, this was not exactly right; as we have seen, he may have played a role in the inflationary pressures that resulted in such a steep rise in barter in Ukraine at the time, to the point that over half of all economic behavior was barter; he nonetheless played a central role in reversing this.

Interestingly enough, however, later in the debate and in response to Janukovych, Jushchenko had these two things to say to him: The state of Donetsk had the highest percentage of its economy being barter in all of Ukraine while you were governor there! And secondly, Jushchenko commented that he has never seen such low exchange rates for the hryvnja as those that obtain today, under Janukovych’s government (and remember that Jushchenko is a highly qualified observer of such matters, as an economist and one who understands quite well the way markets trade in currencies). Jushchenko counterattacked by stating that so far, under Janukovych, inflation is rising again and the Ukrainian currency is once again depreciating in value—all of which will be important in a moment, when we discuss Janukovych’s claim that his government has caused an increase in wages and has been able to increase pension (Jushchenko will say, yeah, sure, but prices have risen more than wages, evidenced in last October’s sudden jump in prices for basic goods in Ukraine).

But now I want to mention the issue of rhetoric: Jushchenko stated in various points of the debate (as well as at his political rallies) how it was shameful to let the hryvnja slide like this; how it is shameful that the government presides over a Ukraine with the lowest pensions and wages in all of the CIS; how it is shameful that the government in the past let oligarchs steal the people’s wealth during privatization; and overall how it is shameful that the government is keeping people trapped in an undignified poverty when Ukraine has such potential to be a prosperous nation. He kept saying, Ukrainians need a government that will uproot corruption. He kept stating that Ukrainians need a “clean” economy, a “clean” government, not one of bandits and ex-cons, but of principled leaders who care about the people. Thus, in numerous points of the debate, he emphasized how he would use money used by Kuchma for things like the renovation of the buildings of the presidential administration for social programs, to support education, healthcare (the healthcare situation in much of Ukraine is deplorable, unless you can pay for it), and for job creation. And Jushchenko at one point mentioned that perhaps the greatest measure of the success of a government is the number of jobs it created, and he stated that because of the policies of his government as PM, Ukraine saw the creation of 400,000 new jobs in 2000 and additional 700,000 in 2001. Contrast this to the ongoing situation in which over half of Ukraine’s population lacks steady jobs—and the fact that Janukovych had nothing to say about job-creation. (Thus, Jushchenko sounds much less like a neoliberal to me and more and more like a Keynesian social democrat all the time).

Janukovych also tried in various ways to present himself as a populist: he did so only partially by trumpeting the alleged successes of his government. But we will see that he highly politicized these successes in effort to make Jushchenko seem like he didn’t care about issues dear to the heart of say, Russians in Ukraine. Janukovych and everyone else like him are desperate to split the vote, to generate false divisions within Ukraine’s electorate by manipulating Ukraine’s multicultural situation, to split Ukrainians against Russians, to divide and rule. Jushchenko is at his most humane, most eloquent, and most passionate when he discusses the false divisions of the Ukrainian citizenry, and how he wants to build a pluralist, multicultural Ukraine for the benefit of all—for no doubt, Janukovych’s policies will in the end be just as harmful economically to Russians as to Ukrainians, because in the end we’re not dealing with purely issues of culture. In fact, we’re really dealing with a pluralist candidate who wants to help everyone in his country versus a candidate who politicizes cultural divisions in an effort to maintain the rule of a fantastically wealthy and corrupt oligarchy at the expense of everyone else, whether Ukrainian or Russian, or Tatar, or Jew, or any other minority. Everyday people care most of all about bread, and while Jushchenko talks about it in universal and pluralist terms, it's Janukovych who tries to force people to think in terms of khlib (Ukrainian for bread) or khleb (Russian for bread).

Thus, what Janukovych mostly did was attack Jushchenko, repeating claims again and again that Jushchenko was responsible for the people’s woes as a result of his alleged hand in the inflation of the early years and for emptying the treasury as PM. Janukovych kept asking, “What kind of populism is this?” and kept stating in various ways that, “The people won’t go back to those days; they don’t want you. They need a new kind of government that cares, etc. I represent the new wave, etc.”

About the successes of his own government, Janukovych claimed that his government has replenished the treasury and got the government rolling in a more productive direction. This was done, Janukovych claimed, by bringing more of the shadow economy into the light; i.e., government has succeeded in bringing much of the shadow economy under control, therefore filling the treasury with increased tax-revenues. By increasing the government’s ability to collect taxes, he claims his government has been able to lower the tax burden on already existing, legitimate enterprise, which then has also led to an increase in wages. Thus the government, with greater tax revenues coming in according to Janukovych, has been able to increase pensions as well as wages for those employed by the state. (An aside, but an important one: the authorities in Ukraine are very fond of using accusations of tax-fraud as an excuse for going after the businesses or for launching investigations of the personal finances of those who don’t exactly cooperate with them.)

In response to these claims of success, Jushchenko said the following:

About wages: wages have not risen as much as prices; we still suffer inflation; in fact, inflation is getting worse again. I have never seen the hrynja traded at such low levels, etc. Here are some statistics: before Janukovych became PM, the average Ukrainian family consumed 36 kg of meat and 63kg of salo (the most Ukrainian of dishes); today, average Ukrainians consume 22kg meat and 30kg salo. Whose policies are responsible for this? You say you lessened the tax burden on companies so that they could raise wages, but right now, prices are rising faster than wages. Who is responsible? Who’s been PM for the last two years? Look at what happened in October. Prices jumped. This is why we right now have the lowest wages and pensions in the CIS—inflation is outrunning wages and pensions again, so what good does your claim to an increase in wages prove (especially when it is a dubious claim)?

About pensions: Jushchenko simply tried to warn voters that this is not permanent. He pointed out that the raise in pensions occurred one month before the election, and more importantly, that the money for the increase in pensions is not in Janukovych’s government’s budget; and that it can therefore easily be taken back. And if one has been listening to what Jushchenko has been saying this far, one should also be getting the point that there are no solid economic policies on which Janukovych’s government stands. Jushchenko concluded with saying that the pension increase is cheese in a trap (“Tse sir!” he exclaimed).

About replenishing the treasury by bringing the shadow economy under better control: Jushchenko went on the offensive, saying that the shadow economy is still 54% of the economy in Ukraine, and (quite humorously, I thought), he asked Janukovych, refering to him by using his first name and patronymic, “Viktor Fedorovych, if you don’t have the facts, why do you bother to talk?” He then went on to say that only the government can be responsible for the persistence of the shadow-economy, that corruption in the government and unsound policy, and things like inflation and unemployment lead, to a shadow economy and a barter economy; and he implied that the oligarchy profits from having a shadow economy, with the statement that “Power is an umbrella for the shadow-economy.” He then went on to say that that the only reason Janukovych could claim to have replenished the treasury is because it has taken $5 billion in loans (from where, I don’t know). Thus, Janukovych has taken these loans, while at the same time relaxing taxes on “legitimate enterprise.” Hm. And Jushchenko pointed out that this will cause or is causing inflation, and that Ukrainians and especially their children will have to pay it back it. Janukovych also talks about fulfilling the budget, but he did it by taking loans, by increasing Ukraine’s debt. Thus, Jushchenko complained that it’s a false budget, that wage increases are false, that the pension increases are cheese, and that, in his words, “every 5th hrynja (in Janukovych’s budget) comes from the ceiling” which will cause inflation and very possibly continue the problem of Ukraine’s poor credit in the West.

So that its for now. I will send a second email about the final issue: that of Chornobyl, which I will use to discuss how it is the Russophile oligarchy that is manipulating Ukraine’s electorate, dividing into Ukrainian and Russian camps, into proWest and proRussia camps. And how it is Jushchenko that is the only multivectoralist and centrist, supporting a policy that is neither proWest nor proRussia but for the People of Ukraine of every background.

Photos: Pora! Action before the Oct. 31, or First Round Election

2005-11-16T02:37:00.000-08:00

I again am tooling around on my blog at Insomniac's Hour: I've got a much too busy mind these days. As I wait to dose off, here are some photos from the Pora! action that took place before the first round on Oct. 31 in Lviv. Sorry about the quality of photos, I did not have good camera yet. . .

"We're the Same Kind of People as You"

"Together We are Strong"

"Everyone to the Barricades!"

"We are not Terrorists"

This was the time when police raided the Pora! offices in Kyiv, just before the first round, and claimed to find bombs and plans for terrorist actions. This was also the time when beatings and harassment of Pora! activists really intensified. Hence the sign above as well, proclaiming that "We are the same kind of people as you," and the one below:

"Students throw Eggs, but Police plant Bombs."

This is in reference not only to the police provocation mentioned above, but also to the egg that was thrown at Viktor Yanukovych by a student in Ivano-Frankivsk.

Recall this joke:

Recall that first, Ukrainian media reported that then PM Yanukovych was hit in the chest by a dull object:

Why was there no dull object found at the cite of the crime? He was already carried off. . .

The day of the Oct. 31 election, the students and activists had cleared out leaving behind this sign that read "WE HAVE GONE TO VOTE/BECAUSE WE ARE NOT INDIFFERENT/WE ARE READY TO RETURN!"

Return they did the next day for some demonstrations, but when Yushchenko called off mass demonstrations, advising that they be held in reserve for the moment, if and most likely when, the administration falsified the second round.

The students really returned in mass then, after Nov. 21. . .

SENT Tu, NOV. 16, 2004, II

2005-11-15T19:38:00.000-08:00

UKRAINE UPDATE: THINGS HEATING UP

Greetings All,

Things are heating up in Ukraine. The run off elections are this Sunday, and things are starting to happen that suggest a fight ahead. And oh, by-the-way, one can spell Janukovych like Yanukovych and Jushchenko like Yushchenko. . .the Y is more common in western press, but I prefer the J.

The bad news:

Yesterday, the governor of the state of Ternopil was dismissed by decree of the presidential administration for failure to fulfill duties. The motivation behind this is obvious. Ternopil is perhaps the most pro-Ukrainian and pro-Jushchenko state in Ukraine (and is where I am now, as my beloved Pidhajtsi is in this state). Large numbers of Ternopilians fought with the anti-German, anti-Soviet partisans during and after WWII. Ternopil was subjected to heavy KGB surveillance and repression, especially in the 1970s. In 1991, Ternopil had the highest percentage of votes in favor of independence in all Ukraine (99% in favor) and the highest percentage of votes for Jushchenko during the first round. It has come out that the presidential administration, in advance of the first round, had set quotas for the percentage of votes for Janukovych and Jushchenko in each of Ukraine’s state. In states where Janukovych was expected to gain a majority, the order was to further deflate votes for Jushchenko. Wherever Janukovych was expected to lose, the order was to make vote-counts more even between the two candidates. Ternopil, as well as other Western Ukrainian states, refused to manipulate the vote and reported to the Central Electoral Commission counts that corresponded with exit polls and with nongovernmental counts, all of which showed that Jushcehnko with an overwhelmingly majority in all of western Ukraine (a surprise to no one). Hence the Central Electoral Commission announced an end to the vote counting and a basic tie between the two candidates without finishing their count of votes in western Ukraine. The sacking of the governor is typical of the sort of intimidation tactics used by authorities throughout the last 13 years of Ukraine’s deeply troubled independence.

Second, today is news that policemen in Pidhajtsi and throughout the state of Ternopil have been ordered to turn in not only their own voter-registration cards and passports, but also those of their wives' and all of their children’s who are eligible to vote. To vote in Ukraine, you need your registration card, which one can get in advance or on the day of the election, and one’s passport. The same process takes place in other former Soviet republics, such as in the Baltic States for example, but the difference is that in Latvia at least, passports are stamped once one has voted. There were proposals to do so here in Ukraine, but no decision was ever made before the election. Apparently, the police administration intends to vote on the behalf of policemen. There are about 60 policemen living in the Pidhajtsi area with their immediate families.

Also, the rumor is going around that employees of the energy utility in the state of Ternopil have been given the same order. The energy utility is controlled by Surkis, who is one of the most powerful and wealthy oligarchs in Ukraine.

Surkis controls utilities in other states as well, but I have not heard if such things have been ordered elsewhere, too. In fact, these stories about police and employees are thus far only rumors to me, but given that every such rumor of misconduct during the first round proved to be true, one is well predisposed to believe that these are more than just rumors. The authorities proved themselves to be utterly shameless in the first round, and they seem to be prepared to take their shamelessness to a higher level for the second round. They seem utterly determined to get a better result for Janukovych in this feisty region.

The good news:

As authorities are showing themselves ready to fight here in Ternopil for an illegitimate result in the election, people here in Pidhajtsi, and one can guess that in other parts of Ternopil and in Ukraine in general as well, are also making it clear that they are ready to fight--to fight for a legitimate election.

Today in Pidhajtsi about 100 people picketed in front of the local police office, demanding that no one cooperate with the order of the administration to turn-in voter-registration cards and passports.

Also, tomorrow at 4 PM in Pidhajtsi there will be a pro-Jushchenko rally, and many more are expected to attend than who arrived to picket today. The rally is intended to be a display of mutual support and to inspire people stay the course and vote one’s conscience inspite of whatever authorities are doing and are threatening to do. In short, in Ternopil and many other parts of Ukraine, being pro-Jushchenko in the second round is synonymous with being for free and fair elections.

This combined with the demonstrations that occurred in Kyiv and Lviv and Chernivtsi and elsewhere after the first round, and the fact that pro-Jushchenko and pro-free-and-fair election rallies will undoubtedly be occuring in many parts of Ukraine before and during the second round, it seems that Ukrainians are ready to fight for democracy. Democracy, as Jushchenko has been clever enough to state over and over again, is already in action here, among the people, at the grassroots. Ukrainians can be seen to be already acting in a democratic way by virtue of the willingness to rally, organize, and demonstrate they have thus far displayed, as well as their willingness to vote their conscience, even in the more-Sovietized parts of Ukraine, despite the authorities. Democracy does not only involve the right and responsibility of voting, but also the right and responsibility to actively organize and demonstrate. I am enthusiastic at this point, in that Ukrainians seem more capable to me than ever before of repeating what happened last year in the Republic of Georgia, where a bloodless Rose Revolution toppled the corrupt oligarchy after it tried to steal and falsify presidential elections there. Ukrainians seem capable, if need be—and right now, it looks like the need may still come to demonstrate, fight, and actively participate in building a popular democracy here.

And one last thing: Last night there was a televised debate between Janukovych and Jushchenko. I will send a digest and analysis of the debate tomorrow or the day after; I will say now that it was very telling.

Stefan

SENT Tu, NOV. 16, 2004

2005-11-15T19:18:00.000-08:00

Below is a reproduction of the first piece I had published last year dealing with the Orange Revolution (or before). You can read the online version of the local Minneapolis paper in which it was published here, or you can read below.

UKRAINE VOTES FOR FUTURE AMIDST WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION:

Thirteen years after its declaration of independence was the final nail in the coffin of the USSR, Ukraine is in the fight of its life for the kind of post-Soviet future it will pursue. On October 31 a first round of presidential elections occurred that have been widely condemned as rife with violations of the protocols of free and fair elections, including the use of physical intimidation and violence by authorities. According to the official count by Ukraine’s government, no candidate received 50% of the vote necessary to be declared winner. The two leaders in the first round, the status quo candidate Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko, will square off in a second round on November 21.

There is little doubt that the first round was rigged to the benefit of Yanukovych. Independent counts show that Yushchenko gained a clear majority over him, and taking into consideration the effect of widespread violations and the fact that the government, for undisclosed reasons, ceased counting votes in the western part of Ukraine where Yushchenko is most popular and received a clear majority, it appears that Yushchenko in fact already won the election with over 50%.

The present situation in Ukraine leaves much to be desired. The euphoria of independence in 1991 dissipated as the economy tumbled. An oligarchy of ex-Communist Party chiefs and Soviet-era industrial bosses formed, organized in mafia-like clans that seized control of Ukraine’s government and economy. Ukraine’s current president, Leonid Kuchma, was a Soviet factory director and Yanukovych is believed to have risen to power through “the Donetsk clan.” The backhanded business dealings and outright theft of foreign aid money by oligarchs caused many investors and development agencies to flee Ukraine, while oligarchs’ pillaging of Ukraine’s domestic wealth has left most Ukrainians hovering in poverty. The economy has begun to rebound, but not before an estimated 7 million have left to work abroad.

Ukraine is a nation of strategic importance to Russia and the West. Ukraine participates in NATO’s Partnership for Peace, and the West looks forward to a democratic Ukraine someday joining the EU. Russia seeks Ukraine’s cooperation in creating a Single Economic Space, and Russian oil and gas exports to the EU cross Ukraine’s territory. The West generally prefers Yushchenko, while Putin endorses Yanukovych.

Yanukovych is the darling of authorities in Ukraine, committed to preserving oligarchic rule. He is backed by a coalition of parties allied with outgoing President Kuchma, one of the most controversial figures of the post-Soviet world. In 200?, evidence emerged implicating him in the murder of the opposition journalist Gregory Gongadze. In the “Kuchmagate” scandal that resulted, demonstrations occurred calling for Kuchma’s ouster and prosecution. Kuchma survived, but with his reputation and power shaken. 30 journalists have been killed or disappeared in Ukraine since 1991, but none since Gongadze. Nonetheless, attacks and intimidation of oppositionists remain par for the course.

Kuchmagate was pivotal in the development of the opposition. Both parliamentary and grassroots oppositions already existed since 1991, but without much unity and effect. Opposition to authorities spread after Kuchma sacked Yushchenko from his post as prime minister. As prime minister, Yushchenko oversaw reforms that resulted in payment of months-overdue pensions and wages, and began reform of the energy sector, Ukraine’s most corrupt sector of the economy from whence many oligarchs sprang. After his ouster, the parliamentary opposition overall unified, and the subsequent Kuchmagate actions galvanized unity between parliamentary and grassroots oppositions, united today in effort to uproot the oligarchy, presently by electing Yushchenko as president.

It is widely viewed that Kuchma and other oligarchs fear prosecution under an opposition government for crimes committed in their pursuit of power. Kuchma has therefore used so-called “administrative resources,” a series of control mechanisms over the media and cabinet ministries at the disposal of the President, to promote Yanukovych. State television networks have been ordered to give positive spin and more airtime to Yanukovych. Non-state networks have been threatened with bogus lawsuits and subjected to other intimidation tactics for not towing the official line, and activist organizations agitating for fair elections have been accused of fostering terrorism.

Nonetheless, Yanukovych is popular in portions of Ukraine’s electorate. A significant number of ethnic Ukrainians support him, but his popularity is greatest in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine, where the majority population is Russian. Yanukovych promises to recognize dual-citizenship with Russia, to make Russian a second official language, and to increase cooperation with Russia.

Cultural matters in Ukraine are very sensitive. The government under Kuchma has done little to promote use of the Ukrainian language, and given the very low level of investment and prestige accorded to Ukrainian-language arts by the oligarchy, the entertainment industry in Ukraine is dominated by Russian-language variants. Furthermore, given that Ukraine already cooperates tremendously with its northern neighbor, most oppositionists regard Yanukovych as intending more than cooperation. Indeed, Yushchenko’s policies toward Russia are more accurately described as cooperation between equal partners than Yanukovych’s, for whom cooperation means Russian backing of Ukraine’s Russophile oligarchy in return for promises to work for further reintegration of Ukraine with Russia. However, not much of Ukraine’s electorate seems eager to pursue this path: Yanukovych did not perform in eastern and southern Ukraine as well as authorities expected, and the majority in the key central-Ukrainian state and city of Kyiv voted for Yushchenko.

Authorities seem nervous that Ukrainians might carry out their own version of the Rose Revolution that swept the corrupt oligarchy out of power in Georgia last year. Authorities have made statements that demonstrations for fair elections “put undue pressure on the electorate,” and Kuchma organized a military holiday in Kyiv just days before the election, with the result that thousands of soldiers remained in the capital for the first round. Everything hangs in the balance for the second round: Will the authorities dare to repeat again what they did the first round, and if so, will the Ukrainian opposition be able to carry out its own Rose Revolution?

SENT Th, NOV 11, 2004

2005-11-15T19:12:00.000-08:00

NEW UPDATE ON UKRAINE'S ELECTIONS:

Greetings All,

Things are heating up in Ukraine. Yesterday, the central electoral (i.e., falsification) commission finally made its statement on the first round of the elections, and although I can not recall the exact figures, they gave Jushchenko a 1/2 point lead over Janukovych, while stating that neither men recieved more than the 50% of the vote necessary to be declared president. Thus, it is now official that Jushchenko is the winner of the first round, and there will be a second on November 21.

People--those in support of Jushchenko and the opposition--are, however, very exicted by this 1/2 point declaration. My Ukrainian family and friends have been trying to convince me that this is a huge victory, that it proves what they've know all along: that Jushchenko actually won a huge victory. If he hadn't, the logic goes today in Ukraine, that the authorities would have been bolder and would have anounced that Janukovych had the lead, if not outright that he had won the presidency. This 1/2 pt concession is to be read as nervousness on the side of authorities, people are saying.

Below is an article, written by Taras Kuzio, one of the best Western (of Ukrainian descent) observers of contemporary Ukraine. In this article, he does an excellent job of summarizing all of the various election infractions committed in the course of the first round, including the use of physical violence by authorities, to control and manipulate the vote. Everything that was rumored to have happened--everything bad that I cautioned you all to take as just rumor until further notice--is turning out to be more than just rumor. The authorities in this country are utterly shameless--but given that they are all Soviet-era bosses, accustomed to making the most ridiculous and bald-faced of lies (authorities and pundits in the US are actually very sophisticated liars by comparison!!!!), this is, I guess, no surprise.

So it also quite clear now that in reality, Jushchenko has already won the election. In every possible way that you count it legitimately, Jushchenko must have recieved more than 50% of the vote. Faktychno vin uzhe maje pravo staty prezydentom Ukrajiny (Actually, he already has the right to become president of Ukraine)! And he knew it already the night of the election, hence his having had congratulated the Ukrainian citizenry for having participated in a successful election the day after votes were cast.

Thus last Saturday, Nov 6, there were demos in Kyiv and Lviv, and probably all over the country, with tens of thousands in attendance. Jushchenko and Oleksandr Moroz addressed the crowd in Kyiv and in some very good news, Oleksandr Moroz, the leader of the Socialist Party, declared that he will support Jushchenko in the second round. Moroz ran himself for the presidency in the first round, and has in the past often cooperated with Jushchenko and others to form the parlaimentary opposition to the status quo regime of Kuchma/Janukovych (and Lytvyn and Medvedchuk, and etc.). Moroz is an interesting figure in Ukraine, something like Ralph Nader, but a more universal figure than Nader is in the US. What I mean is, nearly everyone has something positive to say about Moroz, whether one supports Jushchenko or Janukovych, or any number of communists or other candidates running in this election. People like to say that he is the cleanest, most principled and noncorrupt of all politicians in Ukraine, but in nearly the same breath that he is also the most universally-loved-but-never-to-be-elected of candidates. Its a strange phenomenon--nearly everyone says that they really like him, that he's the best possible option for Ukraine, but then nearly everyone resigns with a woeful sigh that he'd never get elected. . .

So things are heating up. Today I have met a man here in this internet club in Pidhajtsi, an elderly gentleman with a highly intellectual air about himsefl, who is circulating a letter, a plea to authorities to let a legitimate second round take place. He is from another town in Galicia, and is truly an intellectual in the best eastern European sense: in addition to Ukrainian and Russian, he also speaks excellent English and German (way better than I can) and French, and of course Czech and Slovak. We will be meeting later today to discuss the election, etc. He is going from town to town trying to get people to sign his plea-letter, and plans to make his way to Kyiv to deliver it to the central electoral commission and to the offices of president Kuchma and prime minister Janukovych, the status quo candidate. This is just one small example of the kinds of things people are starting to do in the now week and 1/2 before the second round.

Another story is that of a man who will be riding his bike all around eastern Ukraine until the second round, flying a gigantic Jushchenko flag. Jushchenko's flag is orange and displays a horse-shoe emblem (a good luck symbol in Ukraine) with the word TAK! (YES!) written across it. It's simple and effective propaganda: whenever one heres another say "tak", one often hears afterwards (in your head) the word "Jushchenko." This comes from Jushchenko's campaign slogan, which is: Virju, Znaju, Mozhemo!. . .Tak!. . .Jushchenko! (I beleive, I know, We can!. . .YES!. . .Jushchenko!)

There is hope that democracy still won't fail here--and if it doesn't, it will only be because enough people here, thankfully, understand that democracy takes much more than voting, but also active participation in demonstrating, canvassing, organizing, observing, and getting out the vote. What I mean to emphasize here is that a democratic spirit has apparently infected a good percentage of the people in Ukraine--at least in western and central Ukraine--it seems so far. That is, in spite of how the authorities have attempted to convince people that democracy is just the passive act of voting (that authorities can then steal), enough people here seem to know that democracy requires much more, that it requires active participation and agitation. I guess that we will have to wait and see how much of this is really true, during and after round 2, and also to see just how hell-bent on stealing the election the authorities really are. And if they do prove to be so thusly hell-bent, then we will also see whether there truly is a critical enough mass of people in this country willing (and also able) to do what it will take to establish a democracy in Ukraine. That is, we would then see if Ukraine is capable of its own version of the Velvet Revolution that ended Leninist authoritarianism in central Europe, or of the Rose Revolution that swept out the corrupt oligarchy in Georgia last year. (And if Ukrainians succeed in getting Jushchenko into power either through a legitmate election or a legitimate revolution, the question will then become, "What kind of democracy will Ukraine seek to build?")

Stefan

(Note, once again as I cut and pasted this to blogger, the paragraph breaks were lost in the below article. . .)

EURASIA DAILY MONITOR
Volume 1 Issue 119 (November 03, 2004)
YUSHCHENKO WINS FIRST ROUND OF UKRAINE'S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
By Taras Kuzio

Challenger Viktor Yushchenko won the first round of the Ukrainian presidential elections on October 31 (Itar-Tass, November 2). According to official Central Election Commission (CEC) figures, Yushchenko won 16 oblasts and the city of Kyiv. Besides sweeping western Ukraine, Yushchenko won the whole of central Ukraine, a key region where then-incumbent Leonid Kravchuk lost to Leonid Kuchma in the 1994 presidential elections. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych only won in nine of Ukraine's 25 oblasts and in the city of Sevastopol.With 97.67% of the results tallied by the end of Tuesday [November 2], the CEC reported that Yanukovych was leading by 39.88% to Yushchenko's 39.22%. However, many observers find it suspicious that the CEC has taken so long to collect results from key regions that are Yushchenko strongholds -- western Ukraine, including Lviv (3.5% of the votes still not submitted), Ivano-Frankivsk (12%), Ternopil (5%), Volyn (5%), and central Ukraine, including the city of Kyiv, (8%), Khmelnytsky (6.4%), Kirovohrad, and Vynnytsia (3%). These regions would give Yushchenko an additional 250,000 votes, eclipsing Yanukovych's lead of 182,000. On election night five leading sociological organizations conducted Ukraine's largest exit poll. When plans for these surveys were revealed in August, the authorities organized their own exit poll, to be conducted by Gleb Pavlovsky, the "political technologist" who has led the way in dirty tricks against Yushchenko on behalf of presidential administration head Viktor Medvedchuk. In the exit poll organized by the Razumkov Center and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS), in which respondents could remain anonymous, Yushchenko obtained 44.4% to Yanukovych's 38% (exitpoll.org.ua). As election day approached, the number of voters planning to vote for Yushchenko but who were afraid of stating their preferences to polling organizations increased. Upwards of 42% believed that whom they voted for would be found out and that a secret ballot was a myth. This explains why the anonymous methodology used by the Razumkov Center and KIIS obtained a better result for Yushchenko.The exit poll conducted by Sotsis and Social Monitoring gave Yanukovych a lead of 42.67% over Yushchenko's 38.28%. This poll also reflects the fear of some voters to openly admit whom they voted for. According to the head of the Canadian observation mission, "skinhead" organized crime enforcers in eastern Ukraine used violence against polling station heads on election night if they did not produce 80% for Yanukovych (The Independent, November 1). Parallel vote counting at Ukraine's 33,000 polling stations by the Yushchenko camp gave a different picture. With two-thirds of these ballots counted, the Yushchenko camp claimed that their candidate was squarely in the lead with 45% to Yanukovych's 33%. The CEC appears afraid to show the results of parallel vote counting. The fact that Yushchenko won in the majority of oblasts has led the Yushchenko camp to claim the first round (razom.org.ua, November 2). According to an anonymous member of the Yanukovych camp, "There's shock among Yanukovych's team. The real results show Yushchenko probably got more than 54%" (The Independent, November 2).Medvedchuk, President Kuchma, and CEC chairman Serhiy Kivalov are directly involved in falsification efforts to prevent either an outright victory by Yushchenko in round one or at least a large lead over Yanukovych (obkom.net.ua, November 2).Medvedchuk ordered Kivalov to ensure that Yanukovych wins the first round by 0.5-0.9%. Alternatively, if this is impossible, he should "allow" Yushchenko to win by only 0.1-0.05% (obkom.net.ua, November 2). Kuchma promised to ensure that Kivalov was given "legal protection" in the likelihood of demands for a vote re-count. This strategy explains why the updating of the CEC's election results was suddenly, without adequate explanation, halted on election night. The authorities were stunned by the failure of the Yanukovych campaign and the large showing for Yushchenko. Planned violations were difficult to undertake on the scale intended because of the huge mobilization of over 100,000 opposition and youth activists and the large presence of international observers. Serhei Tyhipko, head of the Yanukovych campaign, admitted that they had not expected such large-scale activity by voters in western Ukraine, because large numbers had migrated abroad in search of work (Ukrayinska pravda, November 1).The Committee of Voters of Ukraine (KVU) concluded that each oblast administration was ordered to produce a certain number of votes for Yanukovych (cvu.kiev.ua). Where they were unable to secure the desired result, violations were greater. The Yushchenko camp concluded, therefore, that in reality Yanukovych obtained only 26%, with the remainder of his votes secured through abuse of state-administrative resources.The Yanukovych camp devised four fraud tactics. First, protocols from election commissions in regions where Yushchenko leads were re-written after arriving at the CEC. These included 150,000 votes from Kyiv and Kirovohrad. On election night in Kirovohrad, skinhead enforcers stole protocols after threatening officials and shooting guns into the air. Similar violations are reported from Trans-Carpathia, a former Medvedchuk stronghold that has become a key battleground with Yushchenko. Second, tens of thousands of absentee ballots were used by skinheads and Donetsk Shakhtiar football supporters who had specially arranged trains and coaches organized to transport them from eastern Ukraine to Kyiv and western Ukraine. These absentee votes aimed to secure a high vote for Yanukovych in areas where Yushchenko traditionally dominates.The three regions where these absentee voters were from are Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk and the Crimea. In all three 50,500 more people voted than obtained bulletins (obozrevatel.com.ua, November 2). These were used to swing votes in key areas for Yanukovych. Another 30,000 absentee votes were used in Cherkasy and Chernihiv, plus many more in Zhitomir, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Poltava and Kyiv; all are Yushchenko strongholds (Ukrayinska pravda, November 2). The total number of absentee ballots in favor of Yanukovych is between 85,000 and 130,000, according to election monitoring groups. These groups suspect that absentee voters most likely voted twice, someone on their behalf in their home precinct and themselves at their current location. In Donetsk this was undertaken through the use of foreign passports (with the absentee voters taking their internal passports with them).Third, an anonymous source from the Medvedchuk camp in the CEC also alleged that the Communist Party candidate, Petro Symonenko, "donated" upwards of 670,000 votes to Yanukovych in the Donbas oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Whether these votes were voluntarily "donated" or not, others were clearly stolen. These came from Kyiv Mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko, Progressive Socialist Natalia Vitrenko, former Prime Minister Anatoliy Kinakh and, the highest number from Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz (razom.org.ua, November 2).Fourth, faulty voting lists were a major problem. Prior to election day "dead souls" were uncovered on numerous voting lists, including 17,000 in Kharkiv alone. The Yushchenko camp believes that these "dead souls" could total as much as 2 million throughout Ukraine (razom.org.ua, October 17). Three weeks separate the first and second rounds of voting, and the Yanukovych camp is desperately courting left-wing votes. This may be difficult, as upwards of three-quarters of traditional Communist voters already supported Yanukovych in round one. Symonenko has declined to support "representatives of big business," which he claims dominate both leading candidates, meaning the 5-6% he obtained in round one may not go to Yanukovych (UNIAN, November 1).The Yanukovych camp is desperately courting these left-wing votes by seeking to railroad through parliament before round legislation making Russian a second state language, allowing dual citizenship, and supporting constitutional reform. These measures, though, are unlikely to be adopted, as even some within the presidential camp opposed such policies.The Socialists will be the kingmakers as they defeated, for the first time, the Communists in an election. They, like Yushchenko's camp, believe that the first round was falsified and have stated their intention to not back a candidate from the authorities (Interfax-Ukraine, November 1). Yushchenko is therefore set to gain the Socialist vote in round two, as well as negative votes against the authorities. Yanukovych meanwhile, has exhausted his election support in round one and has nothing to draw upon in round two.

SENT NOV. 5, 2004

2005-11-15T18:16:00.000-08:00

Here are two interesting (and short) updates on the Ukrainian elections:

It is apparently becoming clear that the central electoral commission announced a halt to vote counting after it had become clear that the votes in the central, southern, and eastern parts of Ukraine--the areas, especially the latter two, where support for Janukovych is greatest--would not give Viktor Janukovych a clear, greater than 50% majority. Thus, it is now clear that most of the uncounted votes come from western Ukraine, where Jushchenko is the obvious winner in this competition. Also, it is important to remember that the central Ukrainian Kyiv oblast (state) and the capital city of Kyiv itself voted overwhelmingly in favor of Jushchenko--a shock to all. Thus, it now appears that the Jushchenko campaign gained a very clear majority in the first round (greater than the 1 point spread the electoral commission is claiming between the two candidates), and very possibly in truth won the competition with more than 50% of the votes. All of which varifies the claims that have been consistenly made by the Jushchenko campaign itself, which has been claiming a lead and potential victory according to its own exit polls on the day of the election and its own post-election counts.

In this context, Viktor Jushchenko has called for demonstrations on Saturday, November 6 (my b-day!). By the way, I would like to mention that Jushchenko is much less gun-hoe about demonstations than other oppositionists, or is more measured in his calls to demonstrate, for which he has often been criticized by fellow oppositionists--particularly in the past by Julija Tymoshenko, one of the most firey of opposition figures, who has frequently suggested that Yushchenko is meak on people's power. But in comparison to a Kerry (or a Gore), he is a much tougher adversary for a status quo candidate.

Then, I just thought to mention one interesting tid-bit about election day about which I had perviously forgot to mention. On the day of the election, I left L'viv for Pidhajtsi at 12:50 PM. I have travelled this route many times, and only once has the bus ever been stopped by Ukraine's infamous militsija (i.e., police). The police like to station themselves on the highways and pull over cars, check their documents, and everyone here tells the story of their taking bribes instead of giving fines. Well, on election day, the bus was stopped three times, and we were held for up to 20 minutes or more each time, which is much longer than a routine stop should take. This was ridiculous, and demands an interpretation. Was this one of the stalling and/or intimidation tactics planned by the presidential administration? If the bus had been full of students or obvious Jushchenko supporters, would there have been greater delays? The bus was nearly empty, but everyone got tense. People started complaining that we had to get going, they needed to vote, etc. People on the bus wondered out loud the things I just wrote above. Who knows--maybe the militsija was really out en force to protect "public safety" on election day. But the accuracy of that statement needs to checked against the general conception of what the militsija are in this country--according to most, corrupt--and against all the stories coming out from around the country of the actions of militsijonery before and on the day of election. Stories such as, on the day of the election, roaming buses of police with special documents claiming their right to vote, and apparently their right to vote again and again at various different polling stations; as well as many stories about police having had stopped buses and even trains on their way to the pro-Jushchenko rally the week before the election. But all I will say was that it was highly unusual to be stopped so many times on this trip; that it was no coincidence that it was election day; and that the stops definitely held us up, created an atmosphere of intimidation, and pissed off the people on the bus.

Us'oho najkrashchoho (All the Best),

Stefan

SENT NOV 2, 2004

2005-11-15T18:08:00.000-08:00

Greetings on Day of US Elections, More on Ukraine's Elections:

As of this evening, Tuesday, November 2, there still has been no official statement from the central electoral commission as to the ultimate outcome of the election. The commission is stating that only 92% of the votes are counted, and that at this point,
Janukovych is still in the lead with 40%, while Jushchenko follows at 39%.

It is interesting to note that the that the the gap between Jushchenko and Janukovych has closed; yesterday the commission was consistenly stating a 4-7 point lead for Janukovych, but have today reduced that lead to (actually, little less than) 1 percent. It has been widely accepted that there will be a second, run-off election on November 21, but the general atmosphere is tense and pensive: all are holding their breath, waiting to hear the final word of the central electoral commission in the context of widespread allegations of electoral violations.

Western observers, who have already stated that the election campaign season was anything but free and fair with the administration of President Leonid Kuchma intervening in support of Janukovych's candidacy were also anouncing last night and today that the election proceeded in an unfair manner with a great deal of violations (for more, I will summarize below the types of "violations" being rumored to have taken place). As to whether these violations were committed in a concerted effort to increase the chances of either Janukovych or Juchchenko was not stated, but there is little doubt that the majority of the violations were in favor of Janukovych. This contrasts with the statement by CIS observers, who claimed that the election was fair and free.

However, in a surprising bit of news, the state of Kyiv (Ukraine's states are named for their capital cities, and Kyiv is both the national as well as a state capital) voted 67% for Jushchenko, 13% for Janukovych. As the saying goes in Ukraine, whoever Kyiv wants, Ukraine wants, and noone expected Jushchenko to gain such a majority in the Kyiv region. The general consensus today seems to be that Jushchenko actually recieved the most votes nationwide, even though no one recieved the 50% necessary to be declared winner of the presidency (parallel counts to the official electoral commission counts show Jushchenko with the majority).

In this context, the day began with news that Viktor Jushchenko, the opposition candidate for Ukraine's presidency, intended to read a resolution on the floor of Ukraine's parlaiment calling for the resignation of Viktor Janukovych, the status quo candidate for the presidency, from his current post as Ukraine's prime minister and for the dismissal of his government. Both Jushchenko and Janukovych are deputies to Ukraine's parlaiment; Jushchenko was himself once prime minister, a position from which he we was dismissed by the current president, Leonid Kuchma.

Ukraine's political structure is a combination of an American-styled presidential republic and of a west European parlaimentary republic. Although there is a prime minister who is appointed by the president and then approved by parliamentary that runs domestic affairs, ultimate authority remains in the office of the president, who can dismiss the prime minister and call for the formation of a new government; and if he so chooses, he can also dismiss the parlaiment itself, call for new elections, or if he deems necessary, rule by decree without a parlaiment, which is a power that he has even when parlaiment is in session. This contrasts both with the west European system in which the president is mosty a ceremonial figure, with real power resting in the office of the prime minister and therefore in parlaimentary coalition building, and with the US system, in which the president can not dismiss the parlaiment (the US congress) and can not rule by decree.

Juschenko was to make his request for Janukovych's resignation on the basis that Janukovych made unfair use of what is called "administrative resources" in support of his election campaign. "Administrative resources" is a term in Ukraine that refers to various institutions in control of the office of the president and his administration, such as state-run media, various control mechanisms over ministeries, and simply put, money. The presidential administration of Leonid Kuchma has dumped huge amounts of these "resources" into supporting Janukovych's candidacy, in violation of the strict objectivity that the president should have been maintaining in the competition. The abuse of these "administrative resources" by the Kuchma administration in support of Janukovych is what led to the widespread condemnation of the campaign season as unfair by both Ukrainian as well as numerous Western observers (in addition to various other violations of the precedents of free and fair election campaigns, including intimidation tactics used by supporters of Janukovych).

In the end, Jushchenko declined to read the resolution on the floor of the parlaiment; nonethelss debate about Janukovych's status did emerge briefly over a seperate issue, in the course of a discussion of the parallel count of the votes and of the Kyiv region's having had voted for Jushchenko. A national deputy (who's name I missed, but who is a supporter of Jushchenko) stated that according to the "parallel" count, Jushchenko received 11, 387,000 votes while Janukovych has received 11,350,000, sparking a moment of debate during which Julija Tymoshenko--another opposition figure who has backed Jushchenko's candidacy--stated, "I advise that Janukovych hang himself." In the end, nothing was decided.

In other news--about demonstrations. Things have been overall quiet, at least accoring to the official news sources in Ukraine. Apparently in Kyiv yesterday there was a rather small gathering that peaked at about 500 demonstrators on the central square, called Independence Sqaure, while last night only about 50 or so remained. Demonstrators were brandishing PORA! posters (the organization of activists agitating for free and fair elections), etc. That Kyiv was quiet without any noticeable demonstrating was backed by two friends there. However, the news reported that several thousand gathered in L'viv, and I have heard rumors of more, but have been unable to get a hold of any friends in Lviv today before writing this. There was also little in the news today about the student demo in the town of Chernivtsi. I have no idea if this is the result of media blackout about depth of demonstrating going on in the country, and hope to get to the bottom of this in the next day or two. It seems that the general atmosphere is that at this point there is little need of demonstrating, with most people feeling confident that in the end, there will be a second, run-off election. Not to say that people's guard is down--the fact that any demonstrating has occured at all after Jushchenko and PORA! called off mass demonstrations, to my mind indicates a willingnes to demonstrate and fight if need be. And the need still may come, as the official electoral commission still has to make its conclusive statement.

The consensus is that the commission is dragging its feet in announcing the inevitable, the necessity of a run-off. My sense is that the central electoral commission is buying time in order to gauge the atmosphere of the country, trying to see whether they can get away with stealing the election in favor of Janukovych, and possibly even hoping that by dragging things out, people's willingness to demonstrate will dissipate. Perhaps they have been instructed by the debacle of the last presidential election in the US, which showed a sigificant portion of the American public getting impatient to have a president, any president, declared. Thus I fear that it was a mistake to call off the demonstrations. But that is just my, albeit informed, opinion.

That's it for now. Tomorrow I will try to write about some of the newer rumors of voting violations that took place.

Stefan

Sent NOV 1, 2004:

2005-11-09T06:07:00.000-08:00

Greetings Family and Friends,

Here is your definitive report on what's happening in Ukraine, coming to you from Pidhajtsi, where they once again have an internet connection (hooray!). Mind you, I will be writing only about the two major candidates likely to win this contest or to go on to a further run-off election:
It is Monday, the day after the presidential elections, and as of 1 PM, there still has been no official declaration about the outcome (things move more slowly in general in Ukraine than in the West, so this is no surprise).

Voting took place yesterday from 8AM to 8PM. Throughout the evening most official, i.e., state-sponsored exit polls consistently showed Viktor Janukovych, the status quo candidate, with the lead, however slight, over the opposition candidate Viktor Jushchenko. However, one needs to keep in mind that a) these are only exit polls, and b) that this is Ukaine, i.e., a post-totalitarian nation still not used to openness because openness still doesn't fully exist, a nation in which intimidation tactics still take place (although in limited fashion, but enough to make some people feel threatened), and so some people still fear answering such polls honestly.

However, one should also keep in mind that exit polls taken by the Viktor Jushchenko campaign--which has its own election observers in nearly every voting location throughout the country--have consistently claimed Jushchenko as having the lead over Janukovych.

At 7AM this morning the central electoral commission made an announcement that, with 60% of ballots counted, Janukovych was in the lead. This statement was repeated again at 11AM, with 90% of ballots counted. As of 11 AM, the official count was 40% for Janukovych, 38% for Jushchenko. However, the Jushchenko campaign also made a statement today that, according to their own election observers, Jushchenko had actually thus far garnered 46% of the vote, while Janukovych 33%. Regardless, it seems today that opinion is that there will be a second, run-off election on November 21, in contradistinction to the overall media consensus last night that one of the two candidates would gain a clear majority.

Ukraine's electoral system for the presidency is direct--there is no electoral college. To win the election one must garner at least 50% of the vote. If no candidate wins 50%, there will be a run-off election between the top two candidates. The run-off for this election is scheduled for November 21, but we still await the official statement of the central electoral commission.

As for the issue of the fairness and openness of this election, rumors and accusations of voting violations and intimidation tactics abound this morning and afternoon, with both sides--the status quo supporters of Janukovych and the opposition of Jushchenko-- pointing fingers.

The first rumor is that there has been tampering with voter rolls even before the start of the election. Many people had their surnames misspelled on voter rolls, and the news media throughout the night kept reminding people to take with them all possible documents to verify the correct spelling of their names and to back up their right to vote. There are rumors that election officials, most especially in the eastern and central part of the country, have attempted to use these incongruencies as a pretext for preventing people from voting. The sense is that this was a deliberate intervention designed to create enough confusion so as to discourage people--especially undecided voters--from voting, under the assumption that lower voter turn out, especially among the undecided who might be most discouraged, would help the campaign of Viktor Janukovych.

Another rumor concerns events in the Kirovohrad. According to the rumor, Viktor Jushchenko was announced as having won a clear majority there with well over 50% of the vote. Then, allegedly an order from on high came (via telephone) to the electoral commission, and some fiasco ensued in which the already-counted ballots have disappeared.

Another story is that altogether, in numerous places scattered throughout the country, but mostly once again in the eastern and central regions, thousands of names of dead people have been on voter rolls, and buses and trains of the formerly dead have been arriving to vote.

Then, last night during a press conference held by an official of the Janukovych campaign to discuss the progress of the election in general, the claim was made that people in parts of western Ukraine were attempting to vote on the behalf of relatives working abroad. Millions of western Ukrainians are working and living abroad, and the issue of giving these Ukrainians the right to vote from abroad has been a hotly debated issue leading up to the elections.

Then from my own Pidhajtsi--last night, two people working as election observers (one being my father’s first cousin) complained to me that a fellow election observer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk was trying hard all day to prove or justify his claims that this or that violation had taken place. There are "independent" observers working at election centers all over Ukraine, including 3,000 foreign observers. Many Western Ukrainians have gone to the eastern parts of the country to be observers, as well as the vice-versa. A group of observers here in Pidhajtsi confronted this fellow and told him that if he is here as an observer and not as a Janukovych agitator, then he should get to the business of observing rather than obstructing the election proceedings by consistently crying wolf.

Mind you that all these stories with the sole exception of the one above from Pidhajtsi are unverified reports from Radio (Radio Era, one of the few sources of information hailed as fairly open and free in Ukraine), and should be treated as rumors until further notice. In the case of the Pidhajtsi story, however, the jury is still out as to whether or not this fellow was attempting to deliberately obstruct the elections, or was just an inexperienced or overzealous observer. Only time will tell, when comparisons can be made between this incident and other similar incidents being reported from around the country today--of which there are many. Both of the major sides of this campaign are making claims that this kind of interference has been engaged in by so-called neutral observers loyal to one or the other of the major candidates.

Thus, along these lines, Viktor Janukovych made a statement today announcing that there have been many violations, but since I did not hear the statement myself but just a brief radio announcement that gave no details, I do not know yet what specific violations he is claiming. Viktor Jushchenko also made a brief statement early today in which he claimed that according to the count of his own staff of election observers, he was in the lead with 46% of the vote and Janukovych at 33%. He also congratulated the citizens of Ukraine for participating in a successful election in a statement clearly designed to avoid giving any positive credence to the role of the presidential administration in this election.

Now to some general issues--yesterday before leaving L'viv for Pidhajtsi, I visited the cite where the activist group PORA! (Now's the Time!) had been gathering and spending the night in the days before election. PORA! is a group that is officially nonpartisan, and whose purpose is to get out the vote and to agitate for free and fair elections (although privately most PORA! activists are for Jushchenko). Students and activists had built a series of "barricades" around the base of the memorial to Ivan Franko (a 19th century Ukrainian writer, activist, professor, socialist, and hero of the people) which is located in front of the Ivan Franko National University of L'viv just on the edges of the historic center of the city, in a symbolic action designed to motivate people to vote and to announce that the Ukrainian citizenry would not tolerate any tampering with the election. However, Ukrainian law does not allow campaigning on the day of the election, and the students in L'viv feared that although they are nonpartisan, they would fall victim to police provocation, and abandoned their "barricades" while leaving behind a large banner, fastened around the base of the Ivan Franko memorial, stating:

MY NA VYBORAKH
BO NAM
NE BAJDUZHE!
MY HOTOVI
POVERNUTYS'!

WE HAVE GONE TO VOTE
BECAUSE WE
ARE NOT INDIFFERENT!
WE ARE READY
TO RETURN!

(sorry about the poor quality picture; I did not yet have a decent camera with me at the time. . .)

In the month and days leading up to the election, both PORA! and the Jushchenko campaign had called on supporters to peacefully demonstrate in front of the offices of the central election commission in Kyiv and in front of election offices throughout the country to demand free and fair elections, and they called on their supporters to hold vigil until the votes were counted and the official declaration of results were made. However, sometime either yesterday or the day before, Jushchenko called off his request for such demonstrations, as did PORA, apparently following his lead.

Now for my own personal analysis, this is a very regrettable decision. Many of the people I know here, and myself as well, would have woken up this morning feeling much relieved to know that there were (hopefully) thousands of people demonstrating and holding vigil for a fair election. The presidential administration of Leonid Kuchma, which supports the candidacy of Janukovych, does not want to see a repetition here in Ukraine of the Rose Revolution that last year swept the corrupt oligarchy out of power in the Republic of Georgia, and fears seeing people demonstrating on the streets. Viktor Janukovych himself stated last week just before the election that such demonstrations would put undo pressure on the electorate, misunderstanding to my mind two fundamental points: that the demonstrations were not to be for any particular candidate but for a fair election (which he actually probably accurately understood as a call for Jushchenko to win, since everyone projects that Jushchenko would win a fair election. . .), and second that demonstrations are the backbone of democracy. Democracy does not consist only in the right to vote but also the right to form whatever political bodies one so deems and also to meet with whomever in public and to demonstrate publicly for one's beliefs. Most likely, Jushchenko called off the demonstrations so as to avoid looking bad as he did after last week's debacle in front of the central electoral commission in Kyiv, and also it has been suggested that he may have feared police provocation with the result of turning the peaceful demonstrations into violent clashes that might turn some voters away from him.

However, regardless of all this, there are reports on the radio that students in the town of Chernivtsi have gathered in the central square and declared a student strike in support of the activist group PORA and the cause of a free and fair election. They have declared their intent to stay put until the results of this election are known. At the time I heard the report, around 10:30 AM, already 150 students had arrived, and more and more were coming.

Back in L'viv, posters put up by PORA! had also called for a gathering to take place today , the day after the election, at 11 AM in the place of their former barricades. I have tried getting info from friends in L'viv, as radio has said nothing about what's happening in L'viv, but as of yet I know nothing. Undoubtedly, the intention is the same as those gathering in Chernivtsi--to demonstrate for fairness. Thus, apparently demonstrations were called off for election day, but the general call for more demos may go out again today, while those already occurring may gain steam throughout the day, as people eagerly await the official announcement of the election result.

And one more thing--a CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) statement on the election in Ukraine (the CIS has its own observers here) has declared that the election, including the entire campaign season leading up to yesterday's still undecided contest, had been free and fair. This contrasts with the findings of every western agency to have observed the progress of the election campaign. Thus it is important to note that the CIS is just a puppet organization for all the oligarchs in each of the former Soviet republics except the Baltic states dedicated to maintaining their corrupt, oligarchic control, and in many ways is merely an institution of Russian neoimperialism, especially economic neocolonialism. Anyhow, it is abundantly clear from the perspective of anyone in Ukraine that the State television has given undo precedent to Janukovych, and that the presidential administration of Leonid Kuchma--which technically should remain completely neutral in the campaign--has used its what is called in Ukraine "administrative resources" to promote in every possible manner Janukovych's candidacy.

In conclusion I want to say that at least here in Pidhajtsi, people seem upbeat and hopeful. People are smiling at and greeting one another in a more upbeat and genuine spirit than is normal, and one fellow, after I greeted him with "Good Day," said in response, "Hooray Jushchenko!" There seems to be tremendous relief that this election has not--not yet, at least--been just completely, shamelessly, bald-facedly stolen by the powers-that-be, and that it seems that there will be a second round of voting. The sense seems to be spreading here that a huge battle has been won in the civil war for Ukraine's future. One cannot overestimate what a Jushchenko victory would mean to the people in this town, and in similar towns all throughout Ukraine. To many people, Ukraine desperately needs Jushchenko to win, a sentiment with which I also agree. Ukraine needs Jushchenko as president not because Ukraine stands on the verge of becoming a military dictatorship like Zabuzhko fears; and not because it in some absolute sense needs the West or the EU (to my mind, Ukraine is actually doing quite well directing itself between the EU and Russia, while also seeking other Asian and African partnerships, which is NOT a tacit approval of Kuchma, however. . .there are other ways of navigating between Russia and the EU than Kuchma's brutal and mostly proRussian path; and also, the EU expansion into central Europe is turning out to be something of a very mixed blessing for the central European states, in that the expansion seems to have created a European variant of NAFTA on an West-East axis. . .). Ukraine needs Jushchenko because it needs someone who will stear a clear course of autonomy and independence from Russia (which is possible, even outside of the EU. .). This is a cultural, political, and economic imperative. Thus far, throughout independent Ukraine's contemporary history, not enough has been done to curb the ever-increasing predominance of Russian economic, political, and cultural capital in Ukraine. Ukraine's economy and political system has drifted ever closer to reintegration with that of Russia's; the use of Russian has increased in homes in even the most Ukrainian parts of Ukraine (although a parallel development has also occurred in that use of Ukrainian in predominantly Russian parts has also increased); and Ukrainian arts and popular culture still drag behind their Russian variants in Ukraine. There are more movies and books from the west translated into Russian, and there are even defections of Ukrainian pop artists--singers--to a Russian-speaking audience. The list of things goes on and on. Ukraine's distinctive culture seems threatened, or that is what many people here in the western part of the country fear.

But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, someone needs to reform the oligarchic system and to try to limit the corruption. That is, I don't think that corruption will ever totally disappear. The US government, especially under the Bush administration, has a lot of corruption going on within it as well, but its not as bald-faced and obvious as it is here in Ukraine; which is to say, corruption in Ukraine is way out of control and doesn't have to hide behind closed doors, secret meetings, midnight riders to bills, etc., as it does in the US. It is clear that Janukovych will only continue the oligarchy, and perhaps deepen it. And although there are other reformers running (I especially like Oleksandr Moroz, Ukraine's closest thing to a western European social democrat), Jushchenko is the only one likely to win (i.e., is the most popular of all the reformers). Of course, the path to reform is a long and arduous one full of many dangers and potential failures, and of course some his most enthusiastic supporters may become his most ardent critics if he does indeed become president and the pace of reform is slow. . .but that is a subject for another day!

It is safe to say that here, in western Ukraine at least, a Jushchenko victory would help greatly to increase people's self-confidence, the lack thereof, I have written elsewhere, is one of the biggest problems in this country. The people of this country need a government that is both very, actively and not just passively, proUkrainian and anti-corruption, to help them on the path of overcoming their postcolonial depression and underestimation of the value of their country and their own self-worth as a people.

Today, people in Pidhajtsi are indeed walking around more proudly than usual.

Stefan

Ukrainian Elections NOT Looking Good (sent Fri, Oct. 29, 2004)

2005-11-04T03:56:00.000-08:00

Greetings Friends,

I am gonna write this fast, as I don't have much time, and so I apologize in advance for the typos and mispellings that will go along with this email. . .

I am in L'viv right now. The Ukrainian elections are this weekend, this Sunday, and things are not looking good here. Violence has already erupted twice this past week:

1) Following an opposition rally for Viktor Jushchenko in Kyiv (that had about 100,000 or so in attendance), about 100 to 150 or so shaveheads attacked rally-goers; 7 or so were hospitalized with severe injuries. Shaveheads, btw, are different from skinheads; they are people who, many have told me, are hired thugs that usually hired or bribed with money and booze. . .

2) When the opposition candidate, Viktor Jushchenko and his supporters tried to enter a meeting of the electoral commission (which I think was discussing whether to give Ukrainians living in Russia the right to vote), police barred Jushchenko's entrance to the meeting. (If I got it right, I think the Jushchenko team had wanted to, at the meeting, press the issue of why these Ukrainians living abroad in Russia, who are likely "to vote" for the presidential adminstration's candidate, are being discussed, while the difficulties faced thus far by Ukrainians living abroad in WESTERN countries, who will most likely vote for the opposition, is not on the agenda?) Violence erupted between Jushchenko supporters and the police (and of course, state television portrayed Jushchenko supporters as hooligans).

State media portrayed the aforementioned opposition rally of 100,000 or so as a small affair, with few in attendance; the only independent news station in Ukraine showed detailed coverage, but over the years this channel has had its operating license chipped away so that it now only broadcasts to 30% of the country, reaching mostly those who already have few illusions. . .

Also, yesterday was (conveniently) the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Kyiv from the Germans; so, the President used it as an opportunity to call into Kyiv huge numbers of soldiers for the event. But you see the election is this Sunday, and the soldiers will be garrisoned in and around Kyiv on the pretext of protecting the city from terrorism by opposition groups, etc., on Sunday (you see, a number of opposition groups have supposedly been planning terrorist attacks. . .this according to one report that bombs were found in the offices of one student group, Pora!, which claims, btw, has made its own public declaration that they are victim of police infiltration and that the police planted the bombs and money allegedly discovered).

The Kuchma-Janukovych regime would like to try and prevent anything like what happened last year in he Republic of Georgia from happening here in Ukraine (you see, the incumbent Eduard Shevardnadze falsified the election results, and when he was proclaimed president again, the streets of Tbilisi filled with protestors who eventually caused him to step down and basically admit that he had stolen the election. . .). The soldiers are probably meant to keep people off the streets if Janukovych steals the election this Sunday.

And indications are that the government is doing all it can to prevent people from even making it to the capital city. Supposedly, on the day of the aforementioned opposition rally, trains coming to the capital from western Ukraine were basically empty, while people in western Ukraine were being told that tickets were sold out. I am in Lviv right now, as I wanted to go to the capital this weekend, too, but have been told that there are no tickets. I have no idea if I am being lied to or not, but I will do my part from here in L'viv to march and demonstrate for free elections. Also, supposedly buses to the rally were being stopped outside of Kyiv, people taken off, their documents looked at, etc. . . . Stalling and harassment tactics. Etc.

I have attached here a letter written by Oksana Zabuzhko, one of contemporary Ukraine's best known literary writers and essayists. It is quite over the top (she equates Janukovych with Hitler, or equates last week's violence with the Knight of the Long Knives, which is nothing but hyperbole), but the substance of the matter is still there and quite true. . .

And then some jokes for you.

Last month, Viktor Janukovych the SQ candidate who wants to turn Ukraine into Russia was campaigning in the town of Ivano-Frankivsk when a protestor threw an egg that hit him square in the chest. Janukovych is a rather big fellow (quite tall and fat, but looks like he might have had some muscle in his youth), and this big fellow was so injured or disturbed by the egg that he fell over backward with his hand to his forehead like he was fainting. Well, this incident has provided some substance for an entire economy of fantastic jokes and mockery. The following are jokes from a popular talk show broadcast on a popular Ternopil radio station:

The Ukrainian government anounced today that given the unusual strength of eggs grown in Ukraine, the American government has asked for the immediate start of shipments of Ukrainian egges to help with the war effort in Iraq.

The Pakistani government, having discovered that India is now arming itself with Ukrainian eggs, has sent specialists to research our chicken-farming methods; the Ukrainian government has anounced its willingness to cooperate with Pakistan in its effort to build its own poultry-weapons program.

The government initially said that Yanukovych had been hit in the chest by "a dull, heavy object;" hence the next joke:

Why didn't they find a dull, heavy object at the place of the crime?

Because he was carried away by bodyguards.

Then a joke told by Julija Tymoshenko last month at a rally in Ternopil:

Janukovych was at the barber's; the barber asked him three times, whether it was true that he was imprisoned twice during Soviet times. Twice Janukovych answered, "No, it's not true." the third time he said, "Why do you keep asking me this question? I told you already twice that I'm innocent; it was a mistake of justice!"

"Well, I don't care, really" said the barber, "But every time that I ask you this question, your hair rises, and its easier for me to cut. . ."

So to my friends in Kyiv who have been expecting me there. . .I will keep trying to get tickets! Call me whenever you can!

Stefan

And oh, there is a new wave of opposition posters and buttons that way:

Veseli Jajtsja (Merry Eggs)! Tomu Shcho (Because). . .Povni Shtany (Full Pants)

Janukovych campaign posters all say Tomu shcho. . .and then give some answer for why you should vote for Janukovych. . .

And the Zabuzhko letter:

Subject: The tinderbox that is Ukraine

**********

Kiev, October 24 2004

Dear friends,

I'm writing you this from the country, now haunted with the gory prospect of being forcefully turned, in a week, into one of the most terrible thugocratic dictatorships that Europe has witnessed since Hitler and Stalin. You may find this an exaggeration, yet it's not. It's usually so human, to refuse to believe the worst - until it's too late. Besides, from my recent conversations with my friends and journalists from EU, I know how little information can be found in the European media on the situation in Ukraine - and, as a result, how little understanding there is of what is really at stake here this fall.

Last night the first blood was spilled on the Kiev pavement. The autocratic post-Soviet regime, which since the late 1990s has been smothering the budding Ukrainian democracy, and is by now wholeheartedly hated by the vast majority of population (from 67% to 85%, according to the polls!), has given us its final proof, that there'll be NO - however heavily falsified -
"free elections" on October, 31. There'll be a WAR - an open war, launched against the people of Ukraine by the handful of gangsters now at power, whose only goal is to stay at power after the 31st - at ANY price.

Until last night they've been using the "cold-war" methods (to skip the case of an attempted poisoning of the oppositional candidate, Victor Yushchenko, whose chances to win the elections in an honest game are undeniable). There's been a disgusting and overwhelming campaign of lies in the media (most of them, with very few exceptions, controlled by the power), there've been all the dirty, illegal tricks used (payments, threats, repressions etc.), as well as cheating with the voting lists (with, say, tens of thousands of the dead included on them, etc). Nothing of these, though, proved efficient enough to guarantee next Sunday the smooth and peaceful victory to the "candidate of the power" - the present-day Prime Minister
(appointed by the president), a former (?) criminal, back in his youth twice convicted for robbery (no kidding!).

Yesterday, the grand "orange" manifestation (orange being the colour of the oppositional candidate) of some 150000-200000 people filled the square in front of the Central Election Committee, under the slogan "For honest and transparent elections". It's been a warm, tranquil sunny day (do you know how beautiful is Kiev in the fall?), and the 3-million city was all celebration - of joy, and hope, and solidarity. It's been a long time since I've seen so many happy, smiling faces in the streets - in fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet then, in 1991, as the past 13 years have proved, our celebration was definitely premature. With no change of the political elite, with just very small burgeons of civil society, with -well, why don't I put it plainly - no REAL revolution, Ukraine, after a while, started sliding back into the dark shadow of Sovietization. It's only now, that the dragon of Soviet totalitarianism - in the meantime considerably shrunken, losing one part of his body after another (Eastern Europe - the Baltics - then, last fall, Georgia...), all rotten up to the marrow of his bones (its true - criminal - skeleton now fully exposed!) -
is REALLY agonizing. And the convulsions of the dragon could be terrible -
isn't the case of Russia conspicuous enough?

Vladimir Putin, who has so quickly turned his country back into a concentration camp, fully browbeaten with the fear of terrorism, now serves as the major support for the Ukrainian thugs. Small wonder, as criminals and the KGB officers used to belong together since good old Gulag times. The whole presidential campaign of our "candidate of the power", Victor Yanukovich, is a brainchild of Moscow professionals. Politically and intellectually, Kiev now more and more looks like the city under Russian occupation.And what exactly have they plotted to ensure "the succession of power" in Ukraine, has become visible last night.

About 23.00, after the singing "orange" crowd in front of the Central Election Committee dispersed, and only some 150 people - among them women, and senior citizens - stayed to wait for the results of the session
(which was held inside) to be announced (on the agenda was an attempt to falsify some 2 million voices, due to the machinations with the voting lists!) -
the dragon has bared his teeth for the first time. Some 50 black-leathered men appeared out of the darkness, and attacked people, who were waiting on the park benches, with clubs and knives. There was no police around (!), but three of the attackers - when the parlamentarians and the bodyguards ran out of the building - were caught and handicuffed. According to their IDs, they all appeared to be disguised policemen - of the specially trained "killers'
detachments".

Yes, there've been rumours circulating before - of some "special detachments" arriving from all over the country and concentrating around the city. Of some strange, and highly suspicious manoeuvres noted by the city-dwellers in some areas. Now, next morning after the "night of the long knives" (as a result of which, 11 peaceful demonstrators were taken to the hospital, some of them seriously wounded), there's no doubt left: the war has been announced. The gangsters at power aren't going to leave in any case. They are going to fight - most probably, after the voting-booths will be closed.

Could any, however "specially trained", groups of murderers REALLY work against hundreds of thousands of people? (For people ARE going to go into the streets on the election night, and Ukrainian internet is now boiling with the discussions on how and where to meet, how to protect oneself against the attacks, etc.). Well, maybe they couldn't. And Ukrainian army will hardly agree to turn its guns against its own people, either. But on October, 28 - three days before the elections - there'll be a military parade (!) in Kiev (nothing like this was ever held before on this date!). And Russian president Vladimir Putin is coming to Kiev - allegedly, to take part in the parade (?). And to stay in Kiev for 5 (?) days more. Again, there're rumours - oh, these rumours! - that he'll be bodygarded by some bayonets. More precisely - with two divisions being particularly famous of their operations in the Caucases...

Maybe Ukraine has only one week left. One last week of the electrifying autumn of free political discussions in the cafes and clubs, of gatherings, manifestations, and - well, of hope. For, despite everything, there's an extremely strong, and growing hope, I even daresay, an upsurging belief, that the Ukrainian part of the dragon will be killed next Sunday with the free will of the people. Today the anchorman on the last Ukrainian free TV channel yet unclosed (Channel 5) was smiling the same way people were yesterday in the streets. (For quite a while persecuted, now sued, Channel 5 is under the threat of being closed tomorrow night - but the anchorman was smiling like a winner.) Now covering no more than 30% of the country's territory, Channel 5 was the only one which gave a full report on the events of the last night. Characteristically, none of the beaten witnesses sounded "victimized" - they all talked indignantly, but righteously: that is, like people aware of their rights, and ready to protect them.

It's a totally irrational, yet overwhelming feeling: that "we", the people, are stronger than "them", the corrupted power. And that it's "them", not "us", who is scared.

On the night of the elections I'll be in the streets, too. I don't know what is going to happen there. That is, what forces will be turned against us, and what will be the final result. Yet, even if the worst happens, and the Putin's bayonets help to turn my country, for God-knows-how-long, into a criminal-presided reservation of the degraded Stalinist type, we'll be in the streets - if only to be able to say, that THIS IS NOT OUR CHOICE.

Knowing how easily (and, more than once, eagerly!) does Western press buy the "made-in-Russia" political myths on the current Ukrainian situation
(on Ukraine being allegedly "split" into East and West, "pro-Russian" and "pro-Western", Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking parts, each of them allegedly delegating its own candidate for the presidency), I just wanted to let you know how the things look and feel here in the reality. By spreading the truth further, you'll make your own contribution into killing the dragon. For, as we all know from this old guy Orwell (WHO on earth has ever been so careless to have claimed him outdated?) - what the dragon needs most badly for its survival, is precisely the fake, artificially constructed mental picture. And - needless to say that - the agony of the dragon should by no means be lightheartedly taken as a local process only...

It's not a farewell letter - it's a letter of hope.

Please keep your fingers crossed for us this week!

With warmest regards,

Oksana Zabuzhko

http://www.zabuzhko.com

Word from Ukraine, from Th, Oct. 22, 2004

2005-11-03T10:56:00.000-08:00

I sent this piece to my list-serve last year, on Oct. 22, 2004:

Greetings Family and Friends,

Well, it's been a long time since I have been able to write to y'all, my family and friends. I have been back in Pidhajtsi for however many weeks, and have not been able to read or write email, as the local computer club no longer has an internet connection, which means it is now just an arcade (i.e., its crawling with kids playing computer games). So after a few weeks of not being able to communicate, I finally started going crazy, and so one morning woke up early and decided that I was getting on the next bus for Lviv, where I am now writing to you all.

I was in Pidhajtsi for a while, helping part of my family there bring in the fall harvest.

This is a fascinating time of the year to be there, especially in terms of observing the real differences between life here and in the US or "the West." Most of the harvesting is done by hand with very little assistance from machinary, and I am very curious to chat with those of you my friends who have worked on organic farms in the US, in order to compare notes. I wonder if organic farmers in the US go about the harvest in a similar manner as to how the average Ukrainian villager does, such that life in rural Ukraine could serve as a model for how things might be done in the West.

Anyhow, I am not much in the mood to write, in the sense that I am not much in the mood to describe in any real detail the process and procedures of the fall harvest. But I want to share with you what working and living in this way in a Ukrainian village has stimulated me into thinking. Here's an interesting observation I have made about myself in this country. I have spent, from time to time, a bit of time with Americans here in Ukraine, some of whom are from the Ukrainian diaspora, most of whom are here on Fulbright Scholarships or are with the Peace Corps. In general, these people look at Ukraine in this way: they see what is missing in Ukraine that we have in the West, and they think that Ukraine in general is a kind of silly country that needs to import such and such from the West. This is an interesting point of view, and I learn a lot from them, but mine is completely different. I see how things get done here in Ukraine, and think to myself, "Wow, what the West can learn to do without." It is obvious that the main difference between how I and most of my American colleagues here think and operate is that I do not automatically assume that all the technoligical fancy stuff in the US is good and necessary and that Ukraine is nothing but backwards (not, however, that I do not recognize the need for certain improvements here).

Of course, this touches upon a huge nerve for both Ukrainians and Americans, on what can be called the human need to imagine and determine just what and where the earthly paradise is. For me, it is not a foregone conclusion that it is in America. In fact, for me, paradise is a state of mind more than it is a material reality, even though there are certain material necessities that make establishing a mental paradise easier. However, I must say that the material reality of America is WAY more than what is necessary for the establishment of one's own mental paradise, to my mind; and in fact, it is both the lack of mental harmony that drives America into material OVERabundance and the vice versa, all at once. Anyhow, not only do most Americans here think that their homeland is the earthly paradise, but so do many Ukrainians imagine that it must be. And supposedly, many of them (both these Americans and many Ukrainians I have met) regard the fact that I do not necessarily think that America is such a paradise as a mark of the degree to which I am an American (a refugee, but nonetheless American). This is a notion with which I fervently disagree, for one obvious but easily overlooked reason: There are Ukrainians in Ukraine, and Americans in America, who like me also do not think that America is the universal paradise which all societies should be striving to emulate. This means that this aspect of my thinking does not mark me as an American; it marks me as a participant of a counterculture that does not assume that the way things are done in America is obviously the best, a counterculture that exists both in the US and in Ukraine, and which therefore is a counterculture that is both Ukrainian AND American (and which is a counterculture that is also quite international--not every human being on planet earth admires and lusts to become an American). Also, and very importantly and very instructively, there have also been many a Ukrainian who have told me that the degree to which I don't assume that America is the greatest country on earth, and that the American way is the only way, is a mark of the degree to which my spirit is Ukrainian. That is also not correct. I am an American of sorts, and a Ukrainian of sorts, but most definitely, I am an Ukrainian-American. But the point is: The degree to which one regards America as a paradise has nothing to do with how American or Ukrainian one is. Americanness and Ukrainianness can not be defined by one's love and dislike for different things in the US. Ukrainians who worship the US still are Ukrainians, and Americans who are critical of it still are Americans, and regardless of what I like and don't like about either the US or Ukraine, I am still a Ukrainian-American.

Regardless, one thing is seems quite true of the majority of Ukrainians who idolize the US: they have a very poor understanding of what life in the US is truly like. I have cousins who refuse to believe me when I say that the kids on Beverly Hills 90210 are not average Americans, but rich kids. And from the way that many people here talk about the US, it is apparent to me that the US is, for many people, this fantasyland where not only financial woes are nonexistant, but a place in which all of the probelms of being HUMAN simply do not exist. They can't believe that there are American families--like soooooo many families here in Ukraine--that are utterly divided by fights over money or status or prestige, etc. And they seem to think that all Americans are happy, that the typical emotions of being human dissolve in the happiness of a consumer wonderland. Feeling unhappy? Go shopping!

But the thing is, today most Ukrainians can go shopping. They just want to be able to go shopping more often (now I am speaking figuratively, not literally). I could go on and on, and actually, I have been writing an essay about all of this kind of stuff, comparing the US and Ukraine, discussing what I find good about the US and bad about Ukraine and vice versa, and maybe will someday finish it and send it off. But here's another thing that I have come to feel about Ukraine, a feeling that would probably stimulate much opposition from many a Ukrainian as well as American: the life in Ukraine is indeed difficult and harsh for many, but I am more and more convinced that at least 50% of the problem, the difficulty with the life here for the average Ukrainian is mental and has nothing to do with real poverty. I mean, Ukraine is not India nor the subsaharan Africa. Ukraine actually has a quite high standard of living by global standards, and to my mind, such things should ONLY be judged by global, not Western standards. For there is just no way that every society on planet earth can be like the US or even like the west European countries. There are simply too many people and too few resources, and the environment would simply collapse if all 6 billion plus inhabitants of the earth were to conusme at the rate of a western European, let alone an American. The West needs to slow down its consumption--which is one reason why I am so against Bush, for his post September 11 commandment to all Americans to keep up and even step up their consumption!

Not to say that I am totally against the market or consumerism. It's great to be able to buy things in Ukraine, and most Ukrainians can participate in the new-fangled, post-Soviet culture of consumerism (as I said above, most Ukrainians can shop). Things are not that bad--they only are in people's minds because they are comparing themselves to an overly consumptive western world, when they really should be comparing themselves to the whole rest of the world. I fervently believe that Urkaine would become a much happier place if this 50% side of Ukraine's woes--this mental side that grossly underestimates Ukraine's own self-worth--could change. And I would go further and say that the other side--that 50% that truly has to do with inequalities of wealth and power--can only be overcome once people here stop thinking that everything is so bad in Ukraine, that it's not worth being Ukrainian, and so think things like, "Let's go to America or the West, or look toward Russia as a savior." All of which is to say that 50% of Ukraine's struggle is material, while the other part has to do with overcoming a self-defeating, self-deprecatinig, subservient and colonial mentality and postcolonial depression.

Anyhow. . .I still love this country to death, and in some ways even more because of all this, if any of you know what I mean.

Na Vse Dobre (All the Best),

Stefan

This photo was sent with the orginal email.

Now to a present day comment: overall I still agree with what I wrote above, but I perhaps would write it differently today. This was written before the OR. In the interviews I have so far conducted about a year after the OR, lots of activists have talked about how among the biggest obstacles faced by the grassroots movement against the oligarchy before the OR was Ukrainians' pessimism, fatalism, skepticism, and fear, which is, I guess, what I meant in part last year by stating the problem in Ukraine was 50% about a "self-defeating and self-deprecating, subservient and colonial mentality and postcolonial depression."

Ukraine has a long history of many failed attempts to make a dramatic change (as does Russia), and people have become pessimistic and fatalistic (it is our lot to be poor, and to be abused by corruption, etc.). Ukrainians before the OR were widely skeptical of anyone who promised to improve things (and they have once again become rather skeptical, and with reason). They also were fearful as they have been to some extent rendered docile by generations of frightful authoritarianism. But enough were not afraid to keep the flame of resistance alive. The OR did not happen in a vaccuum. . .

But to explain this 50% mental/50% material problem in Ukraine, one should talk about corruption, and the demoralization (the mental) and poverty (the material) it leads to and which is also its cause, once the circular chain poverty-corruption-demoraliztion-corruption-poverty gets rolling. . .or rather, one should say that corruption has mental and material side, which is both a mental and material cause as much as effect. . .

Now first of all, it is necessary to say that corruption is at the chore of what is the 50% side that is material--i.e., corruption causes poverty, and poverty causes corruption, and round and round. Bohdan ?, a professor of poli sci somewhere in Canada, once wrote to me in an email that corruption is like a disease that effects the head first--if the government is sick with it, the whole social body will eventually get sick too, especially if it gets way out of control in the head/government. In 2004, Ukraine's government or political-economic system ranked among the top 20 most corrupt in the world. The level of corruption is vast and incomprehensible to the average Westerner, and it still is difficult to fathom for anyone who is truly knowledgable about the significant degree of corruption and crime in the business practices and governments of the West. The corruption in Ukraine is simply way beyond what exists today in the West, even under the Bush administration in the US (which to my mind is corrupt and would-be authoritarian, but still nowhere near to the degree of post-Soviet regimes).

Corruption eats away at society. For example, it slowly destroys what people think of their society, and of others within it. People start to loose respect for the politicians and business leaders and often even their neighbors in, if they have engaged in or are suspected to have engaged in corruption, in their country, and people start to look at anyone in any position of power, be it local or in some higher government or business post, with nothing but skepticism. The Ukrainian hip-hop group Tartak recorded a song, I think in 2003, that spoke to this sense of demoralization. The title of the song was ''Ne Khochu Buty Herojam Ukrajiny (I don't want to be a hero of Ukraine)!" They were not entirely serious--it was protest song, against the corruption.

The OR helped people greatly to start to overcome the mental side, the decay in the sense of the value of contemporary Ukrainian society; let's hope that sooner, rather than later, that this will be translated into material overcoming as well. . .because if it does not, the mental problems will also persist, and the cycle will continue. However, the mental side of corruption also is a barrier to the material side, and it is in this mental side where the change needs to start the most. The OR's biggest success so far is some ways is that corruption has become stigmatized. Hopefully, that will mean it will be brought under better control in the long run. . .

Viktor Yushchenko-Reluctant Revolutionary? From Tuesady, Nov. 30, 2004

2005-10-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

I wrote this from Ukraine to my list-serve last year on Tuesday, Nov. 30. It was written in reaction to events that had begun on the previous Friday. Yushchenko had announced the start of negotiations with Kuchma, Yanukovych, et al, in a process to be mediated by Javier Solana and other EU officials. A lot of people were upset with this. Graffiti appeared in Kyiv and elsewhere reading "No to Negotiations!" Both wings of PORA! opposed the negotiations. People watched anxiously what Yushchenko was up to.

What happened at that time perfectly anticipated the present situation in Ukraine, as people anxiously watch what is going on, and a significant number are upset with the compromise he has made with the oligarchy (it seems to that one may truely say this time that it is the majority of OR supporters who are displeased with this move). Once again, PORA! opposes the negotation/compromise; i.e., in this case they oppose the memorandum and the ridiculous proposal to grant local officials immunity. For people like me, Yushchenko appeared that Friday during the Revolution and appears now once again to be zamjakyj. . .too weak, too willing to compromise. But once again, I have to ask myself whether he deserves today the benefit of a doubt, as I asked myself in the course of the OR. . .

One note about some of the spelling in the piece below: I was, at the time last year, in the habit of using a "J" instead of "Y" in spelling Yushchenko and Yanukovych; I think that "j" is much better for translating the yote, but the Y was used in the press, and someone wrote to me and asked me to change to the "Y," as she said that she was forwarding my pieces to many of her family and friends, and my use of "J" was confusing them. . .

Viktor Jushchenko--Reluctant Revolutionary:

Last Friday night, speaking to the crowd of 150,000 supporters on Kyiv’s Independence Square and to the millions of other supporters on streets and at home throughout Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine, Viktor Jushchenko announced the start of negotiations between the opposition and the government against which he has thrown all of his and supporters’ critical energies this past week, in what has already become known as an Orange Revolution. Jushchenko stated that his purpose in the negotiations was to secure promises for a third run of elections, this time with guarantees from authorities of equal access to the media and of strict adherence to the protocols of free and fair elections. Significantly absent from the stage were Julija Tymoshenko and Oleksandr Moroz, who together with Jushchenko have formed the chore leadership of the parliamentary opposition since 2001, and who have throughout the week appeared with Jushchenko whenever important announcements about the progress of events have been made. Tymoshenko and Moroz have in the past parted ways with Jushchenko over matters of oppositional tactics, while Tymoshenko especially has frequently criticized Jushchenko for his reluctance to take radical action. How can we make sense of what is happening?

No doubt, Jushchenko does not want to become President through a conflict that would alienate up to 30%-to maximum of40% of the population—which is how many actually support Janukovych in Ukraine, the events of this past week have made abundantly clear. No doubt that Jushchenko also fears eruption of violence—yesterday tensions were beginning to reach a high pitch, with incidents of conflict between pro-Jushchenko and pro-Janukovych demonstrators, as well as between pro-Jushchenko demonstrators and special police. On Friday in Kyiv demonstrators began to cut through steal barricades erected in front of the buildings of the presidential administration behind which stand columns of what are believed to be Russian Special Police. Conflict also emerged in the cities of Uzhhorod and Chernihiv—in the former, a unit of Special Police, also suspected to be Russian, arrived to guard State administration buildings; and in the latter, police struck demonstrators with truncheons and fired shots into the air as demonstrators attempted to break their way inside of state administration buildings. And finally, an estimated 5-7,000 Janukovych supporters have made it into the capital, where on Friday they held their own rally outside of Kyiv’s central train station, heightening fears of confrontations taking place on the streets between camps.

These concerns aside, there is the issue of Jushchenko’s personality. He is very well described as a reluctant revolutionary, and it is likely that his reluctance at this point to press forward with demands for a complete turnover of power from authorities to the opposition—which is what most people throughout Ukraine think they have been demonstrating for—is as much a matter of personal preference as it is about concerns over violence and safety. Jushchenko likes “clean” politics and procedures; one only has to listen to the rhetoric he has used in speeches throughout the election campaign, as well as in the many statements he has made against authorities these past years both in the parliament and at opposition rallies, to get a sense of his personality. He wants a “clean” government, a “clean” economy, and a “clean” society, which is also what the vast majority of Ukrainians want as well—and the rhetoric of cleanliness in this context does not have mid-Twentieth Century significance, but rather announces a crusade against corruption in the government, the economy, and society in general. What Ukraine needs is dignified processes, clean procedures, and apparently the revolutionary installation of Jushchenko as President is so unclean a process that Jushchenko is willing to give authorities a third chance to prove themselves as anything other than the shameless, power-hungry monsters that most Ukrainians regard them to be, and what they have in fact been these past thirteen years.

This may be an unfair assessment of what is going on in Jushchenko’s head; indeed, Jushchenko made his announcement only after a meeting was held in Kyiv’s Mariinski Palace between himself and Kuchma, Janukovych and other authorities, all of which was mediated by the EU’s Javier Solana, and with many other European heads of state in attendance. No one yet knows what specifically was discussed in the meeting. Also, Jushchenko stated in his speech to supporters that he has given authorities “one or two” days to “constructively” demonstrate their willingness to accept his demands; if they do not, Jushchenko declared he would call for the immediate return to direct action. Thus Jushchenko has not called off demonstrations, and has asked people to remain in the streets and keep up the pressure, but with the implication that no one does anything to further provoke authorities. All of this contrasts deeply with what Moroz and Tymoshenko have said recently. Oleksandr Moroz suggested Thursday that demonstrators may begin to erect barricades on Kyiv’s streets and railways in order to seize control of movement to and from the capital if authorities do not capitulate to the people’s will that Jushchenko become President. In fact, such actions had already begun to happen Friday, with reports of pro-Jushchenko supporters in a village outside of Kyiv having had blocked a train of pro-Janukovych supporters from reaching the capital. Also, the army has pledged that it would not obey any order to move against demonstrators, and more and more of Kyiv’s police forces have arrived on Independence Square to declare to demonstrators their loyalty to the Ukrainian people and their Orange Revolution. Only the Interior Ministry, which has its own forces, has remained silent.

The simple fact of the matter is that most of the millions of Ukrainians that have been inspired into action this past week have had only one thing on their mind—having Jushchenko installed as president. Few have thought that they have taken to the streets to demand a third election. They have not been shouting in the streets “Jushchenko (is) President!” with the idea in mind of giving authorities a third chance, for in fact, to most people’s minds, Jushchenko has already won the election twice. Furthermore, they have shown their willingness to dig in deep and fight. There is no question about this. All the activities of this past week, the symbolic trials; the resolutions passed in various cities denouncing the elections; the parallel declarations in some cities that recognize Jushchenko as president; the marches on administration buildings in various cities demanding that officials face the people; the millions of people demonstrating day in and out on streets in Kyiv and all over Ukraine despite snow and cold; the people sleeping in the cold on squares in cities throughout Ukraine; the establishment of bank accounts to which people have donated generously and enthusiastically to fund support of demonstrators and the logistics of the ongoing rebellion; the food and medical tents established; the businesses that have donated money and warm clothes; the radio stations giving people advice on how to stay warm and engage in civil disobedience; the joy and hopefulness evident on people’s faces; the hopeful if solemn church services held to attend to the spiritual needs of a people deep in struggle; the frequent chanting of “Together We are Many, We Won't Be Overcome!” all say one thing: that Ukrainians are ready for and willing a long fight to the end.

It is important to remember that Ukraine is a poor and to some extent exhausted nation, impoverished by a rapacious oligarchy and battered by a history of many failed dreams. Ukrainians therefore already are spending a great deal of their emotional and financial capital. There is no doubt that there are people in Kyiv for the first time in their lives, people who may never have personally traveled to the capital where it not for the events of this week. This writer personally knows a few of such people. If authorities play their dirty tricks a third time, it is highly unlikely that so many will be able and/or willing to return to the fight. It is therefore to this writer’s mind highly inadvisable to not make use of the momentum of the moment to press forward for demands of a turnover of power, despite fears of violence. Ukrainians themselves will decide how far they are willing to go, and everything this week indicates that many are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Furthermore, given that things have been as peaceful as they have been, that so many police and military figures have declared their open rebellion against authorities, and taking into account the precedent of what happened in Georgia last year as well as the hesitation to take any decisive action displayed by Ukrainian authorities this past week, the suggestion seems to be of a victory right around the corner. I fear that Jushchenko’s move toward compromise Friday only emboldens a dieing animal near its death-throws. Already today, many more of the national deputies in support of Janukovych have felt confident enough to show their faces in parliament again than they have all week long.

Nonetheless, the reaction of Ukrainians to Jushchenko’s move last Friday night is not yet clear. It seems that people are basically ignoring it, continuing on as they have been throughout the week, if having had backed down today in their confrontation with the special police in front of the presidential administration. I hope that Jushchenko’s gamble will not end in disaster for the Ukrainian people. I hope that in the end he proves the wiser.

Now, today, on Oct. 23, 2005, I once again fear that once again he is giving away FAR too much to the old powers.

Greetings

2005-08-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

This is where I will be posting all of the communiques, if you will, that I sent to my list-serve during my first 8 months in Ukraine from mid June 2004 to mid Feb 2005. Thus some of it does not deal directly with the Orange Revolution, but most of it does. Enjoy!

Stefan