Interference in the internal affairs of the CIS
First it was Georgia, now it is the Ukraine. Pro-western factions ready to sell out to the Washington camp, orchestrated by their foreign masters, sweep to power on the crest of a wave of popular revolt, hooliganism and riots. The Otpor factor. However there is a difference. Eduard Shevardnazde had alienated his people against him, whereas the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, has just over half of his electorate on his side.
OTPOR, the Serbian word for “resistance” is the name given to the activists who ousted Slobodan Milosevic from power in Belgrade. The hand of OTPOR in Georgia was visible, Georgian activist and Washington stooge Giga Bokeria liaising with this group in Serbia and receiving them for the return visit to Tblissi which was financed by George Soros’ Open Society. Bokeria in turn is financed by the Open Society and by the US-government-backed Eurasia Institute.
There were startling similarities between the events leading to the overthrow of Milosevic and Shevardnadze and now today with the handful of diehards fuelled by a few busloads of hooligans from the Western Ukraine.
The reaction to the elections in the Ukraine is yet another example of interference in the internal affairs of CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) countries (ex-USSR minus the three Baltic states).The condemnation of the findings of the Central Electoral Committee gives rise to the notion that collective hysteria breaks out in the west every time the stooge they try to place fails to make the grade. In this case, Viktor Yushchenko, the defeated centre-right candidate, is well known to Ukrainian society because he was already Prime Minister for two years between 1999 and 2001.
Where was this condemnation during the appalling electoral fraud committed in the USA on November 2nd?
The reaction from Moscow was more mature and as usual, more in line with the principles of international diplomacy – accepting the results of the election committee and congratulating the man who won – Viktor Yanukovich, with the statement that Moscow accepts whatever decision is taken in the name of the Ukrainian people by Kiev.
Yushchenko - a danger to the Ukraine
The defeated opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, is dangerous in modern-day Ukraine, which has an innate tendency to polarise between East and West, Russian-speakers and Ukrainian-speakers, Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, pro-Moscow and anti-Moscow. Calling on his supporters to take to the streets amounts to insurrection and nothing short of an incitement to revolt.
In politics, as in sport, there is one winner and one loser and those who engage in these activities have to accept that. In the event, the policies of Prime Minister Yanukovich swayed the population to vote for a continuation ofthe same course of events by 49.72% against 46.7%, rather than the hot-headed sell-out policies preached by Yushchenko.
Western reaction immature and meddlesome
The reaction by the West to the defeat of their puppet candidate was as predictable as it was immature and meddlesome.
Mention of “electoral fraud and abuse” from an American observer was risible, after the two fiascos in the USA which saw the most flagrant examples of vote-rigging and electoral fixing in modern history.
The criticism, upon examination, amounts to what the OSCE observers describe in their initial report as “media bias” and “unauthorised persons” at polling stations. For the information of the OSCE, PRAVDA.Ru contacts in the Ukraine have informed us of a few incidents of violence. The “unauthorised persons” mentioned are police officers and local government officials. Where there is violence, or a threat of violence, police officers are present, in a civilised country. Besides, the deployment of police and government personnel is the prerogative of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, not the OSCE.
Another ludicrous comment in this report was the complaint that the high voter turnout was “highly suspicious” in the Eastern Ukraine (more favourable to Yanukovich) but then there was no mention of the equally high turnout in areas of the Western Ukraine, where the vote suddenly took on a “strong democratic spirit”.
Two weights and two measures
When the Republican Party deploys electronic voting machines bought from Republican Party fundraisers who promised before the election to help the President to win, the OSCE observers describe it as localised and insignificant incidents. However, when the incompent stooge Yushchenko fails to win in the Ukraine, it is fraud.
100,000 fanatics, hooligans and trouble-makers in Independence Square, Kiev, fuelled by a few busloads of drunken layabouts from Western Ukraine with nothing better to do and looking for an adrenalin rush, do not represent the 43,7 million strong population of the country.
The municipalities of Kiev, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivks do not have the jurisdiction to disobey the properly elected authorities.
Like it or lump it
The people of the Ukraine have voted for the continuaqtion of a close relationship withRussia, in the same sphere of influence, which makes sense.
The CIS mission and the Institute of Eastern European Countries monitoring the election declared that it was “legitimate” and “answers the norms of democracy and international law”, as declared by the spokesperson, Emir Shleimovich.
If the West has a problem with that – and it appears that “international law” is a concept with which certain countries have a problem to understand these days - too bad.
In plain English, you can like it – or lump it.