Elections In Ukraine

[Armen]

Ukraine's Rape by Elections

 

By Ariel Cohen Published 11/23/2004

 

As was expected for months, forces loyal to Prime Minister Victor Yanukovich of Ukraine attempted to steal presidential elections on Sunday. While two reliable exit polls gave the opposition leader Victor Yushchenko comfortable leads between four and 11 percent, the government-dominated electoral commission awarded Yanukovich a 2.8 percent win. One of the two exit polls which pronounced Yushchenko winner came from a pro-government polling organization.

 

Such victory is apparently mathematically impossible: pro-Russian, pro-Yanukovich precincts in Eastern Ukraine have reported a whopping 96 percent turnout, unprecedented even by the rancid "people's democracy" election standards of the USSR.

 

Many Western observers, including Organization for Security and Cooperation and Europe said Monday that the elections fell far short of Europe's democratic norms and called for review. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), the senior U.S. election observer, announced that Yushchenko was denied access to media and pro-Yanukovich forces committed "concerted and forceful" fraud. Bruce George, the veteran European observer expressed identical sentiment.

 

The stolen election is opening a Pandora's box of political turmoil and geographical splits, as four major cities in Ukraine's pro-Yushchenko West -- Liviv, Ternopil, Vinniytsia, and Ivano-Frankivsk -- have declared him president. An acrimonious, hate-filled political confrontation in Ukraine, which had rather peaceful politics since the 1991 independence, is now inevitable. Ukrainian observers do not rule out violence.

 

The current presidential elections will define the future political course of Ukraine. Moreover, they will decide whether Ukraine is facing the West -- or Russia for years to come. The U.S. has a lot at stake in the outcome.

 

The U.S. has a strategic interest in keeping Ukraine's sovereignty and democracy on track while preventing Russian influence from growing further. The U.S. Government has issued warnings that selective visa bans may apply to Ukrainian officials involved in election fraud. This was not sufficient to prevent such fraud, as the stakes of losing power for the Yanukovich circle are high, and the Russian influence is powerful.

 

The biggest geopolitical challenge for the U.S. is keeping Russia in the anti-terror coalition and assuring access to Russian energy resources, while ensuring the former Soviet states' global economic integration, sovereignty and independence. The instruments in the U.S. diplomatic tool box are limited. Russia, flush with cash from oil sales, no longer needs Western economic assistance, and the advanced technology for oil exploration is widely available in open markets.

 

The Russian, Soviet-educated elite, which often views the U.S. as a strategic adversary, may challenge sovereignty or increase control of the post-Soviet states, such as Ukraine, through overt support of pro-Moscow political candidates.

 

There are two reasons for the Kremlin's ascendancy is Ukraine. The first, according to sources in Moscow and Kiev, is that it poured unprecedented resources into the election campaign: at least $300 million dollars from sympathetic Russian and Ukrainian businessmen. The second reason is more sinister: Russia has access to the Soviet-era criminal files of Yanukovich, who was jailed twice on criminal charges of aggravated assault and robbery.

 

Ukraine is a crucial test of the changing geopolitics in Eurasia. It is a large-scale trial run -- of Russia re-establishing control in the former empire and expanding its access to the Black Sea and South-Eastern Europe. Ukraine should be viewed in the larger context of the recent negative regional dynamics. Before the elections, on Moscow's request, President Leonid Kuchma and Yanukovich engineered Ukraine's turning away from NATO and EU integration. On October 17 President Alexander Lukashenka pulled off an unconstitutional power grab in Belarus, and the stalemate in Moldova over the secessionist trans-Dniester region continues. More active Russian policy in the Caucasus is also in evidence. There, Moscow deliberately undermines Georgian independence by creeping annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

 

Russia deliberately focused its policy on detaching Ukraine from its Western ties and creating a co-dependent relationship with Kiev. According to Moscow experts, for Putin, Viktor Yanukovich's criminal past creates a relationship of a case officer and an "asset". Such a relationship by definition creates a dependency for the Ukraine.

 

If Russia successfully consolidates control over Belarus and Ukraine, Moscow may also pursue a greater say over the Caspian oil. It will do so by increasing pressure on Kazakhstan, possibly utilizing its Russian-speaking minority as a conduit for its influence. It will eventually move to secure Azerbaijan's compliance with the Kremlin regional policy. Beyond that, it may move to further undermine pro-American Mikheil Saakashvili's presidency in Georgia and put pressure on Uzbekistan to come back to the fold of the Russia-led bloc in the former Soviet Union. However, as the Beslan tragedy demonstrated, Russian military power is still limited when it comes to countering real security threats and not largely imagined American influence. Such ambitious policy may create imperial hubris for Russia -- with unpredictable consequences.

 

What to do? The Bush Administration has already said that it will boycott Ukrainian officials who facilitated election fraud. Instead, U.S. should boost those groups in Ukraine that are committed to democracy, free markets and Euro-Atlantic integration by providing diplomatic, financial and media support. Washington should support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all post-Soviet states. The U.S. should further expand cooperation with these countries via NATO's Partnership for Peace and bilateral military-to-military ties, exchanges, train-and-equip programs, and where necessary, limited troop deployment. Washington should maintain and expand dialogue with Moscow over contentious issues, such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as the U.S. presence in Central Asia.

 

The latest developments in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East require increased attention of the Bush Administration and are likely to limit American freedom of maneuver in Eurasia. If Russia consolidates its control over Ukraine and Belarus, and the U.S. will not challenge Moscow's growing influence, the true independence of the post-Soviet states may be just an interlude before the Kremlin reasserts its control. The geopolitical outcome in the region will depend on Washington's engagement in Eurasia, including with the Kremlin; an agreement upon "traffic rules" between Russia and the U.S; and on Moscow's abandonment of an aggressively anti-American policy within and beyond the territory of the former Soviet Union.

 

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., and the editor of Security Changes in Eurasia After 9/11 (Ashgate, forthcoming).

[skhara]

Good article.

 

The latest developments in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East require increased attention of the Bush Administration and are likely to limit American freedom of maneuver in Eurasia. If Russia consolidates its control over Ukraine and Belarus, and the U.S. will not challenge Moscow's growing influence, the true independence of the post-Soviet states may be just an interlude before the Kremlin reasserts its control. The geopolitical outcome in the region will depend on Washington's engagement in Eurasia, including with the Kremlin; an agreement upon "traffic rules" between Russia and the U.S; and on Moscow's abandonment of an aggressively anti-American policy within and beyond the territory of the former Soviet Union.

 

That is key. Russia has an opportunity to reasurt itself while Washington is tied up. Russia is having a positive inflow of cash, the US is hemering away its cash.

 

I heard recently that Russia and China went off the dollar standard and moved towards the gold and oil standard (actual comodities). Do they know something?

 

By the way, it isn't the cold war is back; the cold war never left.

[Armen]

As far as I know Chinese Yuan is still pegged to the Dollar. Where did you get that info Skara? Not sure about Russia. But I think it would be very risky. They could buy some Euro (and they did buy a lot). But gold and oil? Both of these have very unstable prices. If you keep oil and gold more than currentcies during a crisis there could be a oversupply of both gold and oil and no one will want yours as a payment for something. Better keep it in rice and wheat.

[skhara]

As far as I know Chinese Yuan is still pegged to the Dollar. Where did you get that info Skara? Not sure about Russia. But I think it would be very risky. They could buy some Euro (and they did buy a lot). But gold and oil? Both of these have very unstable prices. If you keep oil and gold more than currentcies during a crisis there could be a oversupply of both gold and oil and no one will want yours as a payment for something. Better keep it in rice and wheat.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I have read it a while ago, but actually I said it wrong above. I think they are contemplating such a move, I don't think they have done it.

[Armen]

washingtonpost.com

The New Iron Curtain

 

By Anne Applebaum

 

Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page A21

 

Before the election, the government mobilized groups of thugs to harass voters. On the day of the election, police prevented thousands of opposition activists from voting at all. Nevertheless, when the votes were counted, it was clear that the opposition had won by a large margin. As a result, the ruling party decided to falsify the result, and declared victory. Immediately, the Russians sent their fraternal congratulations.

 

No, that was not a description of the presidential election that took place last Sunday in Ukraine. It was a description of the referendum that took place in Soviet-occupied communist Poland in June 1946. Although blatantly falsified, that referendum provided the spurious legitimacy that allowed Poland's Soviet-backed communist leadership to remain in power for the subsequent half-century.

 

But although that infamous Polish election took place nearly 60 years ago, there are good reasons why descriptions make it sound so much like last weekend in Ukraine. According to the Committee of Civic Voters, a volunteer group with branches all over Ukraine, the techniques haven't changed much in 60 years. In the Sumy region, they record, a member of the electoral commission was beaten up by unidentified thugs. At one polling station, "criminals" disrupted the voting and destroyed the ballot boxes with clubs. In Cherkassy, a polling site inspector was found dead. More "criminals" broke polling station windows and destroyed ballot boxes. In the Zaporozhye region and in Kharkov, observers saw buses transporting voters from one polling station to the next.

 

There was, in other words, not much that was subtle about the disruption of the election -- no arguments about hanging chads or "secret software" here -- and not much that was surprising about the result. Polls taken before and after the vote showed a large margin of support for Viktor Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal. Nevertheless, victory has been declared for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Moscow candidate. He has already received warm congratulations from the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who backed him with praise, money and, possibly, some advice on how to steal elections. It can't be a coincidence that if the Ukrainian election is settled in Moscow's favor, it will mark the third such dubious vote in Russia's "sphere of influence" in the past two months, following the polls in Belarus and the separatist province of Abkhazia, not counting the irregularities that were belatedly uncovered in the election of Putin himself.

 

All of these places do, it is true, seem obscure and faraway to Americans. But so did the events 60 years ago in Poland, at least until it became clear that they were part of a pattern: 1946 was also the year that Winston Churchill gave his celebrated speech describing the "iron curtain" that had descended across Europe, and predicting the onset of the Cold War. Looking back, we may also one day see 2004 as the year when a new iron curtain descended across Europe, dividing the continent not through the center of Germany but along the eastern Polish border. To the West, the democracies of Western and Central Europe will remain more or less stable members of the European Union and NATO. To the east, Russia will control the "managed democracies" of the former U.S.S.R., keeping the media muzzled, elections massaged and the economies in thrall to a handful of mostly Russian billionaires. Using primarily economic means -- control over oil pipelines, corrupt investment funds, shady companies -- the Russians may even, like their Soviet predecessors, begin to work at undermining Western stability.

 

This is not an inevitable scenario. Russia is not the Soviet Union, and 2004 is not 1946. Ukraine is neither as turbulent, nor as violent, nor as physically cut off from the world as were the Central European states after the Second World War. The Ukrainian opposition put 200,000 protesters on the streets of Kiev yesterday, many of whom are too young to recall Nazi or Soviet totalitarianism, and who haven't experienced the intimidation and fear felt by their parents and grandparents. Most have access to communication and outside information -- through the Internet, satellite television, cell phones -- that would have been unthinkable during the Cold War.

 

The West, and especially Western Europe, can and should encourage them. To do so is not difficult, but it does require that we understand what is happening, call things by their real names, and drop any of our remaining illusions about President Putin's intentions in former Soviet territories. Beyond that, all that is needed is a promise -- even an implied promise -- that when the specter of this new iron curtain is removed, Ukraine too will be welcomed by the nations on the other side.

[skhara]

http://www.oscewatch.org/CountryReport.asp...22&ReportID=230

 

The British Helsinki Human Rights Group (BHHRG) sent observers to the second round of the presidential election in Ukraine on 21st November 2004. BHHRG monitored the election in the city and district of Kiev, Chernigov, and Transcarpathia. Counts were observed in central Kiev and Uzhgorod.

 

 

 

Contrary to the condemnations issued by the team of professional politicians and diplomats deployed by the OSCE mainly from NATO and EU states, the BHHRG observers did not see evidence of government-organized fraud nor of suppression of opposition media. Improbably high votes for Prime  Minister, Viktor Yanukovich, have been reported from south-eastern Ukraine but less attention has been given to the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine.

 

 

 

Although Western media widely claimed that in Ukraine the opposition was, in effect, excluded from the broadcast media, particularly in western Ukraine the opposite was the case. On the eve of the poll – in flagrant violation of the law banning propaganda for candidates – a series of so-called “social information” advertisements showing well-known pop stars like Eurovision winner Ruslana wearing the orange symbols of Mr Yushchenko’s candidacy and urging people to vote appeared on state television! ..........

[skhara]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4053753.stm

 

Who is to gain from Ukrains collapse? - Discuss...

[Harut]

Are there any parallers bewteen Ukraine's and Armenia's elections of last year? Edited November 30, 2004 by Harut

[Armen]

JONATHAN POWER

The roots of Ukraine crisis in US policy

 

By Jonathan Power | December 2, 2004

 

THE UPHEAVALS in Ukraine have many roots, but one of them is the lack of a well-thought-out long-term attitude by the Western powers to post-Cold War Russia. Since the days of Mikhail Gorbachev, both Europe and the United States have failed to be clear either to themselves or to the outside world what exactly they wanted beyond an end to communism.

 

Although Gorbachev was much lauded in the West as a great reformer, little was offered in the way of economic help so he would be strong enough at home to preside over a more carefully measured transition than the one that in fact occurred under the impetuous Boris Yeltsin, who rode the breakup of the Soviet Union on his way to power. Then in 1992, at the time of Yeltsin's first government, which was headed by Prime Minister Yegor Gaider, who was serious and clean about economic reform, the senior President George Bush sat on his hands, more concerned about the repayment of the old debts of the Soviet Union than anything else.

 

When President Bill Clinton -- in a desperate search for votes from the East European diaspora in the Midwest -- set in motion the extension of NATO right up to the borders of Russia, it provided all the ammunition that was needed to those in the Russian establishment who had never been happy about a too close relationship with the West. George Kennan, the grand old man of Russian diplomacy, described it as "the most fateful error of the entire post-Cold War era."

 

The Europeans compounded the error by refusing to engage in what Gorbachev termed the construction of "a European house" and President Vladimir Putin's musings on the same theme.

 

The issue of whether Russia is part of Europe goes back at least half a millennium. Norman Davies in his monumental "Europe: A History" writes, "For more than 500 years the cardinal problem in defining Europe has been centered on the inclusion or exclusion of Russia."

 

Empress Catherine the Great categorically announced in 1767 that Russia was a European state. Russophiles recalled that Muscovy had been an integral part of Christendom since the 10th century. Russia's claim to be part of Europe was reinforced later by Russia's role in the defeat of Napoleon and by the magnificent flowering of Russian culture of Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, and Chekhov. Dostoevsky used the occasion of the unveiling of a statue to Pushkin, Russia's most adored poet, to gush, "Peoples of Europe don't know how dear to us they are." Lenin, too, foresaw the day when victorious communists would join with the revolutionaries of Western Europe.

 

But there has always been a counter-trend in Russia. In his influential book "Russia and Europe," written in the mid-19th century, Nikolay Danilevskiy argued that Russia possessed a distinctive Slavic civilization of its own, midway between Europe and Asia. And in the days before the revolution of 1917, the anti-Reds denounced the Marxists as a Western implant dominated by Jews.

 

Today in Ukraine the latest act of this long drama unfolds. A poll recount or a new election will hardly help resolve the situation now that passions are so high. The long series of Western rebuffs to Moscow from the time of Gorbachev on have breathed life into the Slavic chauvinist impulse. Eastern Ukraine -- and the heartland of its economy -- has been identified with Russia for centuries. It was never in the cards that the eastern part of Ukraine would slip its moorings and go West.

 

This could happen only if Russia itself decided unequivocally to become part of Europe, but the European Union countries, both by going along happily with NATO expansion and by their coolness to Russia, have made that impossible.

 

The West's post-Cold War Russia policy now reaches a denouement of sorts, one that astute observers have seen coming for a decade. While few in the West will excuse the rigging of Ukraine's election, using it as a reason to go to eye-to-eye with Moscow would be counterproductive.

 

Ukrainians must work it out for themselves, which means finding a way of resolving this crisis in a way that Russia can accept.

 

The West for its part needs to rethink its whole post-Cold War policy toward Russia. The United States should put a stop to its aggressive geopolitical strategy of challenging Russian interests in the "near abroad," and Europe must use the lure of European membership for both countries to keep Russian and Ukrainian democracy and behavior on the straight and narrow.

 

Otherwise a return to the hostilities of the Cold War cannot be ruled out, and it will be as much the West's fault as Russia's.

 

Jonathan Power is a columnist based in London.

[skhara]

Armen,

 

Any comments on the Ukraine election and the ensuing chaos?

[Armen]

Skhara, I have not been following close enough lately but it seems the U.S. and Russian powers are in equilibrium at the moment. Do you have any information about the 3-rd round?

[skhara]

Skhara, I have not been following close enough lately but it seems the U.S. and Russian powers are in equilibrium at the moment.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

They are. Really, I see it as a gang war. Whatever accusations one side throws at the other, they are also guilty of the same.

 

I don't know if you guys are aware, but the upheaval in Ukraine was an experiment initially tried in Yugoslavia. The student movement in Serbia was called Otpor, the very same organisation was involved in the coup in Georgia and are now heavily involved in Ukraine. Ukranians call their movement "pora". Some in Serbia said that "otpor" was just like mussolini's "blackshirts" and nothing more than terror thugs. The orange opposition in Ukraine of coarse is using this "student movement" for the purpose of intimidation and is likely to turn to violence if they don't get their way. It will be very interesting how this plays out.

 

As far as the bigger picture is concerned, what western powers did in Yugoslavia was an initial experiment of what they always planned for Russia. First, taking away all the CIS states, and then going after Russia herself. And of coarse, Russian military and political leadership understand this and actually Putin made some statements that clearly show that he understands the threat.

 

Conflict is practically inevitable.

 

Do you have any information about the 3-rd round?

 

3rd? I though they were just doing a runoff between the two candidates this month?

Edited December 7, 2004 by skhara

[Armen]

They are.  Really, I see it as a gang war.  Whatever accusations one side throws at the other, they are also guilty of the same. 

 

I don't know if you guys are aware, but the upheaval in Ukraine was an experiment initially tried in Yugoslavia.  The student movement in Serbia was called Otpor, the very same organisation was involved in the coup in Georgia and are now heavily involved in Ukraine.  Ukranians call their movement "pora".   Some in Serbia said that "otpor" was just like mussolini's "blackshirts" and nothing more than terror thugs.  The orange opposition in Ukraine of coarse is using this "student movement" for the purpose of intimidation and is likely to turn to violence if they don't get their way.  It will be very interesting how this plays out.

 

As far as the bigger picture is concerned, what western powers did in Yugoslavia was an initial experiment of what they always planned for Russia.  First, taking away all the CIS states, and then going after Russia herself.  And of coarse, Russian military and political leadership understand this and actually Putin made some statements that clearly show that he understands the threat. 

 

Conflict is practically inevitable. 

 

I agree. I knew about the student organisations set up expecially to create upheaval. It was covered in the Wester alternative press (Guardian, Independent etc.). It is an ugly imperial war for territory and resources. The final stage of 19th century Great Game. They play with open cards now ... There is nothing about democracy or freedom or human rights there. The only difference is that U.S. is more wealthy than Russia currently. If Russia had enough money it could organise similar kind of stuff in Mexico for example or Cuba

 

3rd?  I though they were just doing a runoff between the two candidates this month?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yes, you're right it is a run off. I fear we're going to have a partitioned Ukraine (like Cold War Germany of North Korea).

Edited December 8, 2004 by Armen

[Harut]

The events in Ukrine made me realize how insignificant Armenia is in the international political arena.

while the events in Ukrine are covered daily here in the US, at least on the public radio, i don't recall a single program or a news snippet about the last year's events in Armenia.

 

today's program was about how foreigners are demonstrating in Ukrine, among them Armenian, Georgians, Belorussians, etc..

reminded me of Spain fighting agaist the fasicst regime...

[skhara]

The events in Ukrine made me realize how insignificant Armenia is in the international political arena.

while the events in Ukrine are covered daily here in the US, at least on the public radio, i don't recall a single program or a news snippet about the last year's events in Armenia.

 

today's program was about how foreigners are demonstrating in Ukrine, among them Armenian, Georgians, Belorussians, etc..

reminded me of Spain fighting agaist the fasicst regime...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

And the opposition candidate in Armenia didn't win now, did he?

 

The reason it didn't get so much coverage is because the opposition didn't have a chance. The globalist gang concentrate on places where there is a strong anti-Russia sentiments. They have their plans for Armenia and they are not well-meaning ones you can be sure of that.

[MosJan]

so who is it going to be ??? Viktor Yanukovych or Viktor Yushchenko ???

 

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40640000/jpg/_40640931_yushafp203big.jpg

 

 

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40106000/jpg/_40106506_2yanukovychafp203cred.jpg

[Harut]

it's a shame that irregularities happen during the regular election process... but i don't think this kind of re-election is any better. it is equally unfair. Youshchenko, for example, has gotten excessive amount attention and media time during the protest period, which put him in advantageous position. though, one might argue that such publicity also somewhat damage his reputation, and the result is par. but i think people are too sentimental for that to happen.

[Azat]

It seems like Yushchenko has it in his pocket now

 

it is incredible what has happened to him in the last few months. Just amazing that he is still alive

 

http://www.worldpress.org/images/121104_YushchenkoBeforeAfte.jpg

[Armen]

Ukraine's Choice: Europe or Russia?

 

http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,event.../transcript.asp

[MosJan]

Pro-West Yushchenko wins Ukraine presidency in historic vote

 

46 minutes ago

 

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20041227/capt.sge.rys34.271204180752.photo00.photo.default-245x165.jpg

 

KIEV (AFP) - Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko won Ukraine's presidency, ballot counts showed, after a historic and wrenching election in which he vowed to steer the strategic ex-Soviet nation on a new course toward the West and away from Russia.

 

Photo

AFP Photo

 

Reuters Photo

Reuters

Slideshow Slideshow: Ukraine Elections

 

 

 

But his pro-Russia rival Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich charged that the vote was riddled with irregularities and his campaign vowed to appeal the results to the supreme court -- just like Yushchenko did after a now-discredited runoff in November.

 

Observers said that, unlike Yushchenko's appeal, Yanukovich will not be able to derail the election with legal challenges because of the opposition leader's formidable lead in the ballot count.

 

With 99.76 percent of polling precincts reporting, Yushchenko led Yanukovich by some 2.3 million votes, grabbing 52.07 percent of ballots cast compared with 44.13 percent received by his rival.

 

Yury Zabiyaka, a Kiev attorney specializing in constitutional law, said it was "unlikely" Yanukovich's court challenge to the vote could ever get enough traction to affect the final outcome.

 

"I can't imagine this being possible," Zabiyaka told AFP. New anti-fraud election regulations were widely respected, the burden of proof for Yanukovich's allegations was too high and the country's institutions lacked the will to call Yushchenko's victory claim into question.

 

The legal claims could, however, delay for weeks an official declaration of Yushchenko as the winner of Sunday's vote, as law prohibits such an announcement until all legal appeals had been exhausted.

 

Sunday's historic rematch was set after an earlier runoff in November that handed victory to 54-year-old Yanukovich was thrown out by the supreme court due to widespread fraud amid massive "orange revolution" street protests by the opposition.

 

More than 12,000 observers had been registered to monitor Sunday's election.

 

The Organization for Security and Cooperation (news - web sites) in Europe (OSCE (news - web sites)), which had slammed the November election for irregularities, said that Sunday's vote brought the country "substantially closer" to meeting international democratic election standards.

 

But Bruce George, head of the OSCE international election observer mission in Ukraine, told a press conference: "That is not to say the election was perfect. It wasn't."

 

In his first comments after the close of polls, a beaming Yushchenko addressed dozens of journalists crammed into his campaign headquarters early Monday as official returns showed him with an unassailable lead.

 

"It has happened," he said to wild cheers.

 

"For 14 years we have been independent, but now we are free. This is a victory for the Ukrainian people, for the Ukrainian nation," said the 50-year-old former prime minister and central banker, wearing a tie and scarf in the trademark orange color of his campaign.

 

Reaction from around the world to Yushchenko's apparent election triumph was varied.

 

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana congratulated the people of Ukraine and paid tribute as well to the country's political leaders who he said had "acted with a high degree of responsibility to set their country firmly in the path of democracy."

 

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski congratulated Yushchenko in a telephone call during which he said his win was "a good choice for Ukraine and for its relations with Poland and the European Union."

 

 

 

Yushchenko campaigned on promises to introduce far-reaching reforms and set Ukraine on a course to join the European Union and the NATO military alliance, but will have less than a year to push the changes through.

 

As part of a compromise to end a tense standoff with the authorities over the November vote, he agreed to transfer many presidential powers to parliament.

 

Yushchenko's victory marked a political earthquake for Ukraine, a country stretching along much of Russia's western border and much of which had been part of the Russian empire for centuries.

 

While his pro-Western focus warmed his Ukrainian-speaking support base in the west of the country that wants closer ties with Europe, it sent shivers through the Russian-speaking backers of his rivals in the east, who want to stay in Moscow's fold.

 

It also irritated Moscow, which accused Washington and Brussels of trying to install an ally in Russia's strategic backyard after US- and EU- backed Yushchenko fraud claims in the discredited November poll.

[Sasun]

Hmm... Russia lost the game, or is it to early to call? I hope his health can be restored, but his face is getting worse.