Russia’s role in Ukrainian elections

During the past several weeks coverage of the elections in Ukraine by the Bangor Daily News has provided useful information pertaining to a global community rather than just a global economy. The difficulty is that we tend to address problems when they are on the breaking point. It would take so much less effort, energy and resources to rectify the situation if we were to be a little more sensitive to what the “minorities” indicate is important, whether it is in this country or not.

In 1991 former president George H.W. Bush gave a speech in Kyiv (or Kiev), suggesting that Ukrainians not rush to break away from the Soviet Union, because it may not be the right time. Although that speech is interpreted differently by different people, Ukrainians perceived that speech as not supporting their choice for independence. Since then President Bill Clinton has visited Ukraine twice, while President George W. Bush did not, although he has sent various representatives at one time or another.

Before the runoff elections between Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych on Nov. 21, the president sent Sen. Richard Lugar as an observer, who subsequently reported that the election was fraudulent. Unfortunately, Ukraine finds itself in a very peculiar position with very little support. President Bush reportedly looked “deep into Mr. Putin’s eyes” and saw nothing but friendship. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s pronouncement after the failure to get support from our European allies before the invasion of Iraq was: “Punish France, ignore Germany, and forgive Russia.”

Against this backdrop it is not surprising that Russian president Vladimir Putin was so intimately involved in the Ukrainian elections, supporting and funding openly the election of Yanukovych. Yanuk-ovych even spent about $2 million in lobbying our legislators in Washington (was that Ukrainian or Russian government money?). What is surprising is that Ukrainians took in such great numbers to the streets to protest government interference with the balloting (incidentally, the ballots were printed in Russia).

Although our mass media report that the two factions contesting for power are between those who wish to join the West and are primarily Catholic against those wishing to join Russia and are predominantly Orthodox, that is not correct. The “Western” part that supported Yushchenko is at best about 25 percent Catholic and it encompasses northwestern Ukraine which stretches from Hungary-Poland all the way to the Russian border.

The struggle is actually between the “oligarchs” and the general population. However, the population is pitted one against the other on the basis of “easterners” versus “westerners”; looking for support from the West versus relying on Russian friendship; keeping Ukrainian as the official language versus adding Russian as the second official language, etc.

The “oligarchs” are primarily former Soviet apparatchiks who took control of the government and sold government property at runaway prices to their cronies and family members. The government prevented all protests through a well-developed mechanism of the former Soviet Union. True, there is no gulag where the dissidents could be sent, but in the ’70s and ’80s the Soviet Union intimidated people by denying them employment.

I visited Ukraine four times between 1991 and 2002. I thought that perhaps women in Ukraine would have a better chance of organizing a nonpartisan movement that would not antagonize the government, something along the lines of League of Women Voters in the United States. I also suggested that they establish a link with the American LWV. Subsequently I was told by one person who tried to do just that, that she was called to the administrator’s office and asked if she really liked her job, because there are so many women out there who would really love to have her position. Incidentally, outgoing president Leonid Kuchma relieved all governors whose areas did not provide election results in favor of Yanukovych during the first round of elections.

What surprises me is that Russia is so expansive with great human and natural resources and yet these are neglected and instead Ukraine is on the front burner for annexing or at least to be kept under close control for an undetermined time period. Public television recently had a program about Russia’s far east, describing how unhappy people in these areas are, how neglected they feel, how their resources are squandered and how their riches are taken to Moscow.

The Moscow government can’t adequately handle what is on their plate, yet they must poke their noses into internal affairs of Ukraine. Kuchma has been accused of ordering the murder of a reporter and Yanukovych has been incarcerated twice for criminal activities, before he decided to climb Soviet apparatchiks ladder. I suppose Putin, as a former KGB man and therefore with substantial police training, knows how to handle suspected criminal elements.

The most repugnant activity in Ukraine is that of the Russian Orthodox Church with its Moscow patriarch. Patriarch Alexis demands from the Ukrainian government the “return” of church properties that were confiscated from Ukrainian Catholic Churches in western Ukraine in 1945. Moscow’s patriarch claims to be the spiritual leader of all Orthodox Ukraine, despite the fact that there is a Ukrainian Orthodox patriarch, Filaret, with a seat in Kiev.

Kuchma makes sure that the churches that support him and his cronies get rewarded to a greater extent with possession of requested church buildings and associated properties. During the first and second round of elections the churches belonging to Moscow’s Partriarchate were distributing leaflets supporting Yanukovych and denouncing Yushchenko. It appears to be a paradox in that there are more Orthodox parishes in Ukraine than there are in Russia. Incidentally, there is no liturgical or dogmatic difference between the two Orthodox churches, except that Moscow does not recognize Kiev.

And what can we do? We feel sympathy for Ukrainian people and their struggle for true democracy and pray. Yushchenko, a banker by training, has very limited resources. Kuchma, instead, taps into all of Putin’s resources to force Ukraine into something more to Russia’s liking, in fact, Kuchma visited Putin while the Supreme Court of Ukraine was in session regarding the fraudulent runoff election. These two leaders decided that the best strategy is to recommend having the elections be rerun, rerun from scratch. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not take the bait and what is very significant indeed is that all their deliberations were televised and that their decision (which can not be contested) was unanimous and ordered a rerun of the runoff election.

Russia’s influence on Ukrainian elections does not end here. The parliament can get tied up in all sorts of knots with various factions maneuvering for power. Now there is a talk of the “eastern” Ukraine pushing for autonomy from the central government as well as having some of the president’s power transferred to the parliament. It may be worth mentioning that while the first president of Ukraine, Kravchuk, was involved in nation-building, Kuchma was more concerned with his personal gains at the expense of bringing Ukraine closer to Russia.

Thus while “western” Ukraine retained some of the nationhood spirit and independence, “eastern” Ukraine was adrift. This difference was exaggerated and entrenched to a greater extent by the rhetoric of Yanukovych as compared to Yushchenko. It is easier to appreciate this statement if we consider to what extent would “Europe” want to control Ukraine as compared to what extent would “Russia” want to control Ukraine.

Bohdan M. Slabyj, a retired University of Maine professor, was born in Ukraine.